The aim of sound diplomacy … is the maintenance of amicable relations between sovereign states. Once diplomacy is employed to provoke international animosity, it ceases to be diplomacy and becomes its opposite, namely war by another name. (GR Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper & TG Otte -2001- “Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger,” Palgrave)
Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State. (Article 41:1, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961)
One needs only take a cursory glance at the daily media to realize that “non-interference in the domestic affairs of the receiving country” has been observed more in the breach. GR Berridge, a renowned expert in these matters, claimed that during the cold war the major powers routinely used their embassies to conduct political operations in the receiving states.
According to him: “Such operations might be aimed at propping up a friendly regime or undermining a hostile one, and involve anything from secret channeling to the friendly faction of funds, arms and medical supplies, to organizing a military coup…” (GR Berridge -2010- “Diplomacy: Theory and Practice”, Palgrave Macmillan).
By way of example, Berridge claimed that Zbigniew Brezinski, Secretary of State in President Jimmy Carter’s administration, wanted the US ambassador in Tehran to persuade the Iranian military to seize power. The ambassador had no objection in principle but opposed the suggestion only on the grounds that it would not work (Ibid).
Yet these are usually covert operations and the rule that ambassadors must not become overtly involved in the domestic affairs of the receiving state is still very strong. For an ambassador to do so is considered by some a violation of international law.
We are told by Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux that a government is entitled to use its diplomatic representative to intervene with the host government to change the course of its policy and may apply various forms of pressure on that state to gain compliance but that there are limits to this type of intervention:
This type of intervention, government to government, using diplomatic channels, is acceptable (and common), even if threats are conveyed. But the publication of an article by the embassy that attacks how the host government is conducting its internal affairs would be a violation of international law, as would, of course, organizing and financing opposition activities or any form of subversion, and fermenting civil disturbances. (Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux –2009- “The Dynamics of Diplomacy,” Boulder, London)
It appears to me then that when outgoing US Ambassador Brent Hardt in his speech at a Blue Caps meeting publicly berated the president and government of Guyana for not implementing local government elections, being inconsistent in their reasoning for not doing so and suggesting that more voices should raise in protest, he went beyond what is acceptable diplomatic behaviour.
I have no doubt that a large swath of our population believes, as the ambassador does, that the government is violating the constitution by refusing to hold local government elections and that more voices do need to be raised in protest. Indeed, many believe that while persistently calling on the citizenry to maintain the law the regime routinely breaks it!
I have many a time in this column argued that, in our kind of undeveloped political context, it is unwise for any political party to eschew non-parliamentary action to gain compliance. With regard to the regime’s refusal to hold local government elections, only last week I asked “I wonder what would happen if, when his term is up, the president finds some reason to decide that the time is not appropriate for calling elections! No doubt we would go to the courts, who would give conflicting decisions and then to the Caribbean Court of Justice, which would be unable to enforce its decision!” (“Granger’s approach need not come to naught” SN: 25/06/2014)
As reported, to much applause, Ambassador Hardt then sought to explain his behaviour. “I have said to anybody that wanted to cast accusations and what not, ‘Tell me at any time if I am doing anything that is not in the interest in the people of Guyana or the country’ and I have never heard anybody tell me that I’ve done anything that is contrary to those interests. So, I’ve always felt that I am on pretty solid ground. At the end of the day you have your conscience. You know that what you are doing is what you should be doing and I sleep well at night knowing that we are advancing interests, not only to our country, but [of] the people of this country as well.”
Yet I doubt that the kind of stance the ambassador took at the Blue Caps meeting would have gone without reprimand by any government today. Based upon the little understanding I have of these matters, it was way out of line for the ambassador to seek to salve his conscience by publicly berating the president and government for not implementing policies he believes to be in the interest of the people of Guyana! As we have seen above, this is simply not his remit.
We should not confuse the role of the ambassador with that of his government. My memory tells me that when, under the PNC, the US government wanted to publicly suggest a change in government’s policy, it did not do so through its ambassador. Presidents can send messages; special missions, which may or may not be public about the concerns of their governments, may be dispatched; legislators may be utilized, etc.
The fact that so many Guyanese believe that the ambassador has a right to make his position public should serve as a wake-up call to the government to put its house in order, but it will not. Rather than viewing the support the ambassador received for what it really is, namely the increasing frustration being felt in what appears a hopeless political situation, the regime prefers to view these citizens as unpatriotic. Indeed, it sees in this event only another opportunity to use Indian people by defining the justifiable criticisms of its behaviour as racist attacks on Indian women!
As to the ambassador, unluckily for him, the regime is not sufficiently secure to take albeit inappropriate criticism in its stride. Thus incensed, the regime compounded his wrong by sending the untamed to his door!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
