What was the issue?
On December 12, American Authorities arrested Indian consular officer Devyani Khobragade. She was subjected to handcuffing, strip-searching and she was treated like an ordinary criminal. This followed a louder protest by Indian Government and the intense national outrage.
India’s stand: question of diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges.
The intense national outrage at the arrest and humiliation of Devyani Khobragade is justified. Indian society was deeply shocked that a senior Indian official was subject to a strip search. This also created a deep sense of cultural outrage.
There was no reason for the American authorities to treat her like an ordinary criminal, even if they believed she had breached US criminal laws and her actions were not covered by the immunity provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).
By handcuffing, strip-searching and locking her up with criminals, the Americans clearly violated the provisions of the VCCR, which requires that consular officials be treated, at all times, with respect.
Question of diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges.
Among the many issues brought into focus by Khobragade’s arrest is the question of diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges
These are codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).
These conventions provide the formal basis for the conduct of diplomatic and consular intercourse among nations.
The VCDR provides complete immunity from any criminal action to accredited diplomats. It also ensures that embassy premises as well as homes of diplomats are secure, and cannot be entered by any person of the receiving country. The VCDR also protects the communications of diplomats, though it is well known that intelligence agencies try to clandestinely pry into them.
The VCCR provides all the immunities to consular officials that diplomats enjoy, except that it significantly excludes immunity against grave crimes.
The reason for this vital difference lies in the fact that the representative status of the consular officials is circumscribed to commercial, economic, cultural and scientific work, apart from looking after the interests of their nationals and servicing passports and issuing visas.
Immunities and privileges are meant to ensure that the conduct of diplomacy and consular work can take place without impediment and harassment and in a conducive environment.
The main objective of diplomats and consular officials is to foster good and beneficial bilateral relations through cultivating the government and opinion-makers of the countries of their postings.
In addition to the formal framework of the VCDR and the VCCR, there were informal customs and understandings that sought to ensure that aberrant or disturbing behaviour of diplomats and consular officials was managed in a discreet manner, so that it never reached a point where it cast a direct shadow on relations between countries.
In extreme cases, diplomats and consular officials were declared persona non grata and asked to leave. As the diplomatic world is governed by the principle of reciprocity, their countries asked an equivalent number of their counterparts to leave as well, and the matter ended there.
US’s Stand:
According to US officials, Devyani Khobragade had signed an agreement to pay her domestic help, Sangeeta Richard, $9.75 an hour. Instead she paid her only $3.31 an hour.
As Khobragade had violated US laws, it was both legal and legitimate for the US attorney, Preet Bharara, to have her arrested and charged.
US’s double standards exposed:
In the past there were cases when American government has literally whisked away their citizens from prosecution in foreign countries.e.g. Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor, was whisked away from the Pakistani judicial system after shooting and killing two Pakistani citizens.
It is normal for American diplomats to receive diplomatic immunity. Rather abnormally, the American government expects that even its non-diplomats should receive immunity.
American government allows no foreign government officials, including a powerful person like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then head of the International Monetary Fund, any immunity from American laws. Yet it expects its government officials to be — in theory and in practice — immune from other countries’ legal courts.
Whenever any US government official faces the threat of prosecution in a foreign legal court, he or she is quietly whisked away, as few governments can withstand bilateral pressure from the US government.
Cheer India cheer….!!!!!
All governments in the world are aware of this double stand attitude of the US government. On one hand, the US government is second to none in defending the rule of law at home. On the other hand, the US government is second to none in defending immunity for its officials from all foreign legal courts and judicial procedures.
This double stand attitude of the US government explains why virtually every other government in the world was quietly cheering on the Indian government as it insisted on total reciprocity in the treatment of Indian and American officials.
They hoped that India would finally succeed in persuading the US government to accept a level playing field in dealing with other countries. The Indian government’s success in persuading the American government to allow Khobragade to return home and not face charges in an American court will therefore be cheered all around the world.
Most countries realise that they would not have had the weight to shift the US government. India is one of the few who could do so. And in doing so, India has also enhanced the rights and standing of other foreign diplomats on American territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment