The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities by the Diplomatic Envoys Proposed Solution - Research Paper Example

Running head: Proposed Solutions to The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Introduction The issue of abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunity has been a thorny one over the years. Many a time, countries such as Kenya in East Africa have complained in the past that the United States envoys have been interfering too much in their internal state affairs (Makoha, 2009). A similar situation has obtained in Asia and the Middle East where envoys from the same US have been accused of everything from undue interference to dictating terms. However, diplomats from other countries have been accused of more serious things including human or drug trafficking, smuggling in of goods and even espionage. Diplomatic privileges and immunity are exceptions provided for by international law under the Vienna Convention. The aim is to provide representative of one country in another with immunity form prosecution or undue restriction in the conduct of their affairs while in the host country. However, diplomats can be expelled by the host, if the latter judges it to be prudent to do so. However, all these privileges on work on the understanding that in exchange the diplomat is expected to obey all the laws governing the country in which he is hosted (King, 2008). This research seeks to define the extent of these privileges as provided for in the convention and the manner and degree to which such privileges have sometimes been abused. It also seeks to point out what can be done to avoid similar abuse of the privileges in future. Hypotheses The hypotheses of this research are twofold. 1. Abuse of diplomatic privileges occurs due to lack of controlling measures for such abuses. 2. Abuse of diplomatic privileges can be controlled in future if preventive measures are taken to do so. In both cases, abuse of diplomatic privileges is the dependent variable while the independent variable is the controlling measures. Research Questions  The research questions to be addressed here are three. 1. Are diplomatic privileges abused by the very diplomats they are designed to protect? 2. Has such abuse taken place in the UK? 3. How can such abuse be prevented in future? Contribution to Knowledge This research will contribute to knowledge by finding out ways in which controlling measures are effective in reducing incidences of diplomatic abuse. Literature Review on Diplomatic Privileges Diplomatic immunity can be traced back to several events and laws that happened or were enacted in historical periods. One such law is traced to the Holy Koran which states that a messenger should not be harmed even if he carries with him an offensive of highly provocative message. One sunnah or story in the holy book is about Musaylima sent messengers to Prophet Muhammad claiming to be a prophet Equal to him in all terms. However, Mohammad refused to have the messengers harmed since they were only innocent bearers of the offensive edict (Al-Nabawiyya, 2000). The history of Medieval Europe is also replete with the mistreatment of diplomatic corps ranging from the threats on Edmund Bonner the envoy of King Henry III to France by the host king Francis in 1538; to the mistreatment of Russian envoy Andrei Matveyev by British Bailiffs in 1709. The latter event led to the beginnings of legislation on diplomatic immunity and privileges by the British House of Commons. Other western European countries such as France and the Ottoman Empire also enacted certain rules to help offer some level of protection to diplomats to help them do their work relatively without interference. However, it was not until the Vienna Congress of November 18414 to June 1815 that rules were laid down on diplomatic immunity that have since been ratified by almost all countries in the world. The outcome of this congress has since been known as the Vienna Convention (King, 2008). Privileges Guaranteed by the Vienna Convention The bottom-line of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic immunity was the agreement by all nations involved that there would be recognition of diplomatic immunity from prosecution and persecution of persons traveling on diplomatic passports on their tour of duty in another country. Such immunity operates on a reciprocal basis in that one country will protect the diplomats of another on the basis that they expect the other country to protect its own diplomats as well. The convention recognized that all countries are interdependent on one another and diplomacy was a better way of negotiating peace than for two countries to work it out through full scale war (King, 2008). In simple terms, a diplomat in a given country cannot be arrested and charged in court under the laws of the host country. The most that the host country can do is to complain to the country that sent him so he can be punished under the laws of that country of origin. It is however incumbent upon all diplomats to know the laws of their host country so as not to break them at any given time. In this way smooth relations between countries can be maintained (King, 2008). Diplomats also have the onus to carry themselves with decorum, always use diplomatic language even when seriously in disagreement and to show respect to the locals and their culture, however alien they find them to be (King, 2008). These privileges however vary from country to country, but the basic legislations passed depend on the backbone of the original Vienna agreement. The United States for instance categorizes diplomats as Diplomatic Agent who is the Ambassador; Administrative and technical Staff in the Embassy; and Service Staff. So, while the Diplomatic Agent, the Administrative and Technical Staff may not be arrested, prosecuted, subpoenaed as a witness or have their residence entered and searched; they can still be issued with traffic citations. The service staff on the other hand enjoy no such immunity (Diplomacy in Action, 2010). Some countries also have their own reservations about the provisions of the Vienna Convention. These include Arab countries that have refused to recognize Israel as a state. Consequently, though they subscribe to the convention, the privileges are not extended to Israel. Countries also general do not extend diplomatic immunity to personnel of international organizations. Consequently it is such organizations that have the onus of defining the terms by which their staff will be working in agreement with the host countries. Some international organizations such as those associated with the United Nations are however more recognized in this sense than merely private business and non-governmental organizations (Barston, 2006). Abuse of Privileges There have been many case in the past where diplomatic privileges have been abused by those they are designed to protect. One highly protracted case is that which involved the Libyan Embassy in Britain and the host Government. According to a report carried in the Home Page of BBC Online in 1984, British policewoman WPC Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a shot from the Libyan People’s Bureau on April 17th of that year. British Nationals were seriously outraged especially considering that WPC Fletcher was on duty trying to control demonstrators outside the bureau. Many considered the demo insignificant and not warranting the armed response. People therefore demanded that those who had been responsible for the shooting be arrested and charged (BBC Online, 1984). This demand of course flew in the face of the Vienna convention and the matter has not been fully resolved since. However, in 1999 the strained diplomatic relations between the two countries were restored after Libya admitted general liability about on death. Another issue that has brought diplomatic immunity into sharp international focus is the advent of international terrorism since the turn of the millennium. Terrorists, being the secretive operatives that they are, usually take advantage of any situations that can aide the success of their cause. All sorts of accusations have emerged linking certain diplomatic missions to the active assistance of terrorists. The memorable quote by one Jordanian Minister to George Bush during the latter’s visit to the Middle East that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” has further strengthened this argument (Crenshaw, 2003). The basis of the argument is that certain diplomats do not view terrorism as it is conventionally understood, but see it as a legitimate way of pursuing political ends. The quote here is corrupted from that originally used by Walter Laqueur which ended with “revolutionary” rather than “freedom fighter” (Laqueur, 2001). There have been arguments that when US, British, Russian and Chinese embassies are used as bases of espionage in foreign countries to help launch attacks, they are as much an aide to terrorism as when Iraqi diplomatic staff in London help coordinate the work of Al Qaeda to help in the bombing of railway stations there (Westad, 2007). Though his argument is essentially weak in that the former countries mostly engage in open war while the latter are underground operators, there is still an element of war tactics being different according to the might of the attacker. However, there are still questions about the complacency of the US embassy staff, especially those attached to the CIA, in the mysterious assassinations of prominent left-wing politicians in Africa and South America in the 1960s and 70s (Laqueur, 2001). Apart from terrorism, diplomatic staff have in the past been involved in dubious activities such as drug and arms trafficking. In the South American cocaine rings of terror, diplomatically immune staff have at times been found to be engaging in the vice and retreating to the safety of the embassies when being chased by law enforcers. Guns are brought in ostensibly to protect the embassy installations only to end up in the black market of the host country. Other widely reported instances of abuse of diplomatic privilege involve the trafficking of persons (Barston, 2006). Diplomats in countries with tough immigration laws such as the US and Western European states have been found complacent in aiding citizens of their countries of origin to illegally immigrate using the privileges given to them. Some of the persons are brought in as diplomatic staff only to disappear into the countries they move into (Freeman, 1997). Though some of the instances of abuse of diplomatic privilege are minor compared to the ones above, their effect is just as bad for interstate relations. A Canadian diplomat in Tanzania once spat on a traffic cop who stopped him on the road. A number of US ambassadors have also made it part of their calling to progressively lecture Kenyan leaders on how to enact reforms and carry out good governance by prescribing their own standards. In one extreme case, a British envoy referred to Kenyan leaders as greedy thieves who overeat through corruption and vomit on everyone’s shoes (Makhoha, 2009). Some forms of abuse may look minor but directly endanger the lives of people in the host country. Practices such as driving while drunk or knowingly infecting locals with incurable diseases such as AIDS; are very dangerous to the locals. There have been cases like this in the past which underline just how selfish and inconsiderate some people become, especially if they know that they will get away unpunished (Freeman, 1997). Solutions to the Abuse To control the abuse of privilege by diplomats, host countries have only one weapon, to declare the diplomat persona non-grata. If the diplomat disobeys this by continuing g to stay in the country, then his diplomatic immunity will be waived and he can be arrested (King, 2008). However, this measure alone is not enough considering that it is and extreme measure avoided by many countries so as not to unduly strain relations with the country of the diplomat’s origin (Freeman, 1997). With this in mind, it begins to look more and more like erring diplomats will always go unpunished. But other measures can be taken to further control such errant envoys (Kissinger, 1995). One such measure is to train people on diplomacy before they undertake their tour of duty. This can give them a clear idea on what their responsibilities are going to be (Berridge, 2005). They can also learn a lot a bout the culture of the people they shall be interacting with, what is considered as politeness and courtesy in those countries and what is socially unacceptable. At the moment, few countries take their time to train these individuals on their tour of duty. The assumption is that anyone who is known to be a public figure of long standing is just assumed to be an automatic candidate for diplomacy (Kissinger, 1995). Another thing that can be done is that where enough evidence is gathered against the diplomat, countries of origin should be compelled by international law to take action against the errant diplomats regardless of how much the country itself may suffer in terms of losing reputation (Berridge, 2005). Further still, countries should also be allowed to control the ways locally employed staff are treated by the embassies that employ them so that their basic rights, like the need not be sexually abused are protected. In other words, the employees should be working under local labor laws rather than the laws of the country running the embassy (Kissinger, 1995). Finally, certain extreme crimes such as murder and causing death through dangerous driving conduct should be exempted from diplomatic immunity. This will force the diplomats to exercise more responsibility while carrying out their duties. Methodology  This research shall be carried out using self-reporting questionnaires sent to randomly sampled employees of the Home Office in London. The questionnaires shall be designed to gather both qualitative and quantitative data since the nature of this research calls for both quantifiable issues such as the number of incidents that have occurred and qualitative ones such as opinions on such issues. The data gathered shall then be recorded, analyzed and reported. Conclusions shall be drawn from the gathered data. 3-contribution to the knowledge is not clear  yours Conclusion It is clear form the foregoing that all efforts should be put in place to ensure that diplomatic relations are maintained between countries. This is the surest way of ensuring that unnecessary wars are averted and peace is maintained between those countries. Diplomats must also continue enjoying immunity and the requisite privileges to make their work easy. Even though these privileges have been seriously abused, by and large they remain absolutely necessary. So, all efforts must be made to make them as effective as possible by curbing instances of abuse. The countries that send the diplomats obviously have a major role to play towards this end. References Al-Nabawiyya, Al-Sira. (2000). The Life of Prophet Muhammad Vol 1. London: Garnet Publishing. Barston, R. (2006). Modern Diplomacy 3rd Edition. London: Longman. Berridge, G. (2005). Diplomacy 3rd Edition; Theory and Practice. New York. Palgrave Mcmillan. Crenshaw, M. (2003). Terrorism in Context. Pennsylvania State University. Diplomacy in Action (2010). United States Department of State Website. Retrieved on March 6th from Freeman, C. W. (1997). Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. New Jersey: USIP. King, D. (2008). Vienna 1814; how the conquerors of Napoleon made love, war, and peace at the Congress of Vienna. New York: Crown Publishing Group. Kissinger, H. (1995). Diplomacy. New York: Touchstone. Laqueur, W. (2001). Age of Terrorism. Boston: Little Brown and Company Makoha, K. (2009, September 6th). “Another Diplomatic Row With US Envoy”. The Daily Nation Newspaper”. Nairobi: Nation Newspapers. Westad, O A. (2007). The Global Cold War. Cambridge University Press. Read More