Diplomats Behaving Badly * Mareeg.com somalia, World News and Opinion.
Mareeg Media
Somalia

Diplomats Behaving Badly

Marege.com-NEW YORK – Diplomats, normally discreet figures who rarely court publicity, have
been in the news a lot lately, for all the wrong reasons. Two recent arrests of
diplomats by their host countries have put a spotlight on the justification for, and
limits of, the immunity from local law that such officials typically enjoy.

In the first case, Dmitri Borodin, the minister councilor at the Russian embassy in
The Hague, was arrested late one night in October of last year, after neighbors
alerted the Dutch police that Borodin, allegedly in a drunken state, was beating his
two small children. He was handcuffed in his own home and taken to the police
station.

According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomats cannot be
prosecuted according to a host country’s laws. So Russian President Vladimir Putin
immediately demanded an official apology from the Dutch government for ignoring
Borodin’s diplomatic immunity. The rabble-rousing Russian politician Vladimir
Zhirinovsky called on his followers to smash the windows of the Dutch embassy in
Moscow. A week later, a Dutch diplomat in Moscow was beaten up at his home by armed
thugs (no connection between the two cases has been proved).

The timing of all of this was awkward. The Dutch king, Willem Alexander, was about
to visit Russia to celebrate the two countries’ friendly relations in the so-called
“Netherlands-Russia Year.” The Dutch foreign minister duly apologized to Russia for
the conduct of his country’s police, and Borodin was recalled to Moscow.

Then, in December, the New York City police arrested an Indian consular official,
Devyani Khobragade, for paying a domestic worker less than the minimum wage in the
United States and for falsifying the worker’s visa application. Because consular
officials do not enjoy the same degree of immunity as higher-ranking diplomats, the
police were acting within their authority, even if their methods – strip-searching
Khobragade, for example – might be considered excessive.

The reaction in India, however, was much fiercer than in Russia. Outrage was voiced
in the press. Apologies were demanded. Demonstrations were held. US diplomats were
stripped of customary privileges. Threats were made to arrest same-sex partners of
US diplomats, because Indian law criminalizes homosexuality.

All of this might seem over the top and childish. But, because diplomats are their
countries’ official representatives abroad, their symbolic function is much more
important than their individual personalities. They are like national flags: insult
them, and you insult the “nation.” And when it comes to preserving national “face,”
Russia and India are perhaps touchier than most countries; Russia has always felt
looked down upon by western European powers, and India is still reckoning with a
legacy of colonial humiliation.

A writer for the Times of India expressed Indians’ sensitivity succinctly: “The sad
truth is that India is now viewed abroad as a third-rate banana republic.” Whether
or not this is true is beside the point. Many Indians, especially among the Delhi
elite, believe it. The behavior of the New York City police played into their
deepest fears.

One of the most interesting aspects of these two diplomatic incidents is what it
tells us about the new Russian and Indian elite. Diplomats have always represented
the face of their country, but their own faces have changed.

In the past, diplomats did not actually represent nation-states, but royal courts
(in most monarchies this is still officially the case). As a result, European
diplomats, for example, were mostly aristocrats, who all spoke French to one
another.

Diplomatic incidents often had to do with the relative status of kings and queens.
One famous incident in the late eighteenth century was Lord Macartney’s British
mission to the Imperial Court of China. Macartney refused to conform to Chinese
imperial protocol by declining to kowtow to the emperor, because he was not required
to do the same to his own sovereign. This, too, was very much a case of “keeping
face”: the Chinese expected tribute; the British lord insisted on the equal status
of his king. As a result, the mission broke down.

Diplomatic immunity from local prosecution was an idea that sprang directly from
another incident, almost a century earlier, involving the arrest of a Russian
aristocrat, Andrey Matveyev, who represented Peter the Great in London. Matveyev was
detained and roughed up by bailiffs who demanded money from him. The Russians
complained. The British apologized. And the British parliament enacted a new law
protecting diplomats from suffering similar treatment in the future.

Borodin and Khobragade are not aristocrats. Far from it. They represent a very
different age, which one is tempted to call democratic, even if Russia today is more
like a soft dictatorship. Perhaps Borodin was just enjoying a rare night out and is
normally an abstemious man, but his thuggish behavior is perhaps not entirely
atypical of a new class of Russians that has accumulated a great deal of money and
power since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Khobragade’s case is more interesting. She was born into the Dalit caste, the
“untouchables,” who in former times would never have gotten anywhere near the elite,
except to sweep their floors. Since Indian independence, the government has done
much to improve the Dalits’ status, and the deputy consul general is one of the
beneficiaries of this policy. She is a member of the new Indian elite, increasingly
wealthy and proud to represent a rising power in the world.

If the allegations that Khobragade systematically underpaid her domestic worker are
true, this shows how fully she has adopted the customs of the class to which she has
risen. In all the Indian protests about the terrible blow dealt by the Americans to
Indian self-esteem, only a few mentioned the habitual exploitation of the poorer
classes. As with their politicians, a country’s people, it seems, often have the
diplomats they deserve.

Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism at Bard
College, and the author of Year Zero: A History of 1945.

Copyright: Project Syndicate

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Mareeg.com somalia, World News and Opinion.