Breaching diplomatic protocols

GOPAL THAPA

Frequent meetings of the Kathmandu-based foreign ambassadors and diplomats with our ministers, secretaries and even the prime minister without absolute knowledge, let alone prior concurrence, of the foreign ministry have, of late, become routine phenomena. Our politicians, ministers and bureaucrats are always thirsty for such meetings and the diplomats are more than willing to quench their thirst. As a matter of fact, such breaches do happen in other countries, too. But, these are seen as exceptions, rather than a rule, as is the case here. Here in Nepal, nobody bothers too seriously whether such meetings have anything to do with the breach of diplomatic protocols.

DIPLOMATIC SENSITIVITY

However, this time a different and a very grave nature of incident has occurred. A sitting member of the constituent assembly (CA) has lodged an official complaint at the parliament secretariat against one diplomat. The timing of its occurrence and the sensitivities involved has made it even more serious. If proven, they constitute a flagrant breach of sub-articles (1) and (2) of Article 41 of the “1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”. The “Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Relations and Human Rights” has rightfully directed the foreign ministry to investigate the allegations and initiate diplomatic action, as appropriate. Needless to say, the CA member’s allegations are too important to be overlooked. Full investigation, therefore, will have to be made to get at the bottom of the matter. This is absolutely necessary so as to uphold the sanctity and dignity of the CA, and that of the CA member. Concurrently, given the sensitivities involved, this has to be handled with equal diplomatic dexterity and tact. But this doesn’t mean we close our eyes on any open and flagrant breach of diplomatic norms and protocols. No diplomat guilty of noncompliance must be allowed to hide behind the diplomatic immunities and privileges.

REASONS

It is interesting to note that mostly ambassadors from big and powerful countries have been often found in breach of these norms, taking undue advantage of the fluid political situation and the weak government in Nepal. The reasons are too obvious. These ambassadors have the means and ability to entertain and dispense favors, and our politicians, ministers and high-ranking bureaucrats are always the willing recipients. The reasons for meeting could be manifold; some of them are under the false impression that rubbing shoulders with powerful ambassadors would help to project and promote a better image of theirs, at home and internationally. Secondly, among others, these kinds of meetings may offer them real opportunities to push their personal agenda for soliciting scholarships and visas for their close relatives and their long desire for embassy-sponsored free foreign trips. What they fail, however, to understand is the fact that every favor given has to be returned in equal measure, and sometimes even more dearly. Naturally, problems and differences occur when the give-and-take deals become unacceptable to any one of the party involved.

Probably Nepal is one of the few countries where members of the diplomatic community receive so much of undeserved importance, to the extent that that they have been literally pampered.

Throughout my career, I have noticed that probably Nepal is one of the few countries where members of the diplomatic community receive so much of undeserved importance, to the extent that that they have been literally pampered. Perhaps, because of the excess importance we give them, some of these diplomats tend to overvalue their diplomatic status and are prompted to ignore the diplomatic decorum. They even feel it infra dig to meet and interact with anyone below secretary level. In this context, it would be appropriate to bring up an interesting incident that I encountered when working with the foreign ministry, as chief of protocol. One fine morning, I came across the news on TV about an ambassador-designate meeting with the then prime minister and also with the chief of the largest political party. The ambassador-designate had been in town barely a day or two ago and had not even submitted the copy of his “Letter of Credence” to the ministry through the Office of the Chief of Protocol, as per practice. I was rather aghast at the news and immediately contacted the then foreign secretary for confirmation. He had absolutely no knowledge of the news either! The next day he met with the foreign minister who was as much in the dark as we were. He made representation to the prime minister and registered to him the uneasiness and embarrassment the news had caused him and the ministry. But it was refreshing that the media, print and electronic, gave a wide coverage on these meetings with scathing comments, terming them as an open violence of diplomatic norms and protocol. Emboldened, perhaps, by his calls on the prime minister and other important political leaders, the ambassador-designate may have thought it redundant or below his dignity to meet the chief of protocol to take briefings from him for the credential presentation ceremony! His deputy chief of the mission called me the next day in my office to enquire if, instead of his ambassador, someone else from the embassy could come to meet me to take the briefing. Normally, in keeping with the time-honored diplomatic tradition and practice, every incoming ambassador-designate has to come to the Office of the Chief of Protocol for a briefing on the credential presentation ceremony procedures. I was surprised beyond imagination by his audacity to make such an undiplomatic request. Humiliating as it was, I was seething, yet I said to him on the phone calmly, “This is something every ambassador has been doing not only here but in every country, pursuant to the established diplomatic practices. I am sure, as a senior and seasoned diplomat, you must know about this diplomatic practice more than I. What can I say?” Smart as he was, he gleaned through the hidden meaning in my answer. Then he said, “Mr Chief of Protocol, I was merely joking, please don’t take it seriously, the ambassador will definitely come for the briefing and I will also be accompanying him”. Then the date for briefing was fixed and everything ended well. I must say, these two incidents are proof enough to underscore why we have been witnessing a steady erosion of respect for us and for our country in the diplomatic community. But the show goes on with impunity even as our national pride and dignity continues to suffer.

It is not that the ministry of foreign affairs (MoFA) has not done anything to streamline the system. During the time I was with the ministry, I recall MoFA having called several inter-ministerial meetings, including meetings with ambassadors, to get them to channel their diplomatic communication and meetings only through the foreign ministry. But the noncompliance continued then and continues now and, unfortunately, it has of late become more pronounced. Granted, this is a sensitive issue, but diplomats, too, should honor established diplomatic practices, and it is the responsibility of the ministry to ensure and secure compliance from them. The foreign ministry could perhaps be more proactive in monitoring non-compliance, seek explanation and even shouldn’t shy away from prosecuting the offending diplomats. Perhaps, it would also be prudent for MoFA to prepare a “comprehensive manual” in this respect and get it approved by the cabinet to give it more legitimacy and make it more effective. If it has already done so, then strict and effective enforcement of the same has to be ensured in cooperation with government ministers, bureaucrats, politicians, parliamentarians and foreign diplomats. It may not be possible to secure full implementation overnight, but frequent monitoring and prosecuting the proven offenders will help cultivate a habit of compliance by and by.

(Writer is former Chief of Protocol.)

bhimsen29@gmail.com
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=22671