In restricting movements of US diplomats, Pakistan is only abiding by the Vienna Convention
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last week during a congressional hearing that American diplomats in Pakistan were “treated badly.”
But long before he said this, his deputy John Sullivan announced in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) that in view of what the U.S. felt were unfair restrictions on the movement of American diplomats in Pakistan, the U.S. was imposing a ban on the movement of Pakistani diplomats in America similar to the restrictions imposed on diplomats from certain other countries. He termed this, I am paraphrasing, as nothing extraordinary.
When asked by the BBC to comment on this, I told them this meant the U.S. did not accept the Pakistani contention that the restriction on movement into certain areas was for security reasons and for ensuring the safety of the people concerned. It was unfair that the Americans believed they were being singled out even when this applied to all diplomats and when this was specifically provided for in Article 26 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. There was no invoking of Article 26 on the movement of Pakistani diplomats in the U.S. and in the circumstances that prevailed in the U.S. and particularly in Washington DC, this would mean an enormous dislocation for our officers and staff who could not afford to live within the prescribed 25-mile radius.
This should not, however, have been interpreted as representing a major break in relations. Costs such as these have to be borne when it becomes necessary, while efforts to remedy the situation continue and while relations in other spheres are maintained.
The silver lining I saw in this development was that it provided an opportunity for Pakistan to set its house in order. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its protocol department — which is responsible for all matters relating to diplomats posted in Pakistan — can now try to ensure that facilities accorded to American diplomats were no more and no less than were provided for in the Vienna Convention. They should also do away with the departures from these principles that allowed Americans under Article 47 special treatment to one diplomatic mission even when discrimination between sending states was prohibited. Lastly, this was a chance to similarly scrutinize the acts of omission or commission by any other mission, and to take the corrective steps necessary.
What should be done to achieve this? I believe the solution lies in going strictly by the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Specifically, Article 41 states that all businesses should be conducted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or any other specified government entity. In the case of Pakistan, every diplomatic mission must follow this. The only exception is in matters relating to economic assistance and cooperation for which they are allowed to deal with the Economic Affairs Division.
The same article provides that all diplomatic missions respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. This would mean registering their cell phones as required by local law, not installing or using wireless communication except as sanctioned by the receiving state, and not using local number plates for the mission or using diplomatic plates on private cars not owned by the mission or its officers.
It would also mean not using tinted glass on the windows of their cars, and determining the size of the diplomatic mission and the reasonable import requirements of the mission and its officers. This obviously does not mean that the sending country’s mission must be the same size as is permitted in the sending state, but it does mean that there should be a discussion on what is adequate.
Finally, it means ensuring that no representative is registered with multiple passports, a problem we have faced quite often if anecdotal reports are to be believed.
Americans should not feel they have been singled out, as the imposing of restrictions on diplomats is for the safety of those concerned, as mandated by the 1961 convention.
Najmuddin A. Shaikh
Anecdotal evidence also suggests there may be missions in Pakistan whose imports are far from reasonable.
As noted above, the abuse or, put more diplomatically, the misuse of privileges has not been the domain of the American Embassy alone. Cars with diplomatic plates of international organizations and perhaps some other diplomatic missions are being used by NGOs and Pakistani ministries. These can only be seen as a violation of Article 41 which prohibits interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state.
What other measures do we need to take to permit the representatives of sending states to perform their most important duty to “promote friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations?”
Today, we must recognize that many countries treat Pakistan as a non-family state and send officers for very short stints. The problem is compounded by our issuing visas only for short periods. While we must discuss with such missions the improvement that has come in our security situation and letting Pakistan become a family station again, we must also ensure that short-term visas do not cause problems. In the past, if memory serves me correctly, we issued 3-year visas believing that this was the normal period for a diplomat to serve in the country to which he was accredited.
Even for countries with which we have adversarial relations, we need to keep our channels of communication open. Our embassies abroad and those in our country both need to be fully functional and effective to permit such communications. Therefore, we must observe in letter and spirit the 1961 Convention, prevent its abuse and enforce its provisions. But we must also recognize that we have to implement it in order to permit it to serve its purpose.
The only response one can offer to Secretary Pompeo’s remarks is that one hopes the U.S. president Donald Trump’s focus on America First continues to be a Nation of Laws. A strict observance of the rights and obligations of the 1961 Convention is exactly what he should be advocating and supporting.
– Ambassador (R) Najmuddin A. Shaikh is a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan and was Pakistan’s Ambassador, in numerous countries including the U.S. and Iran. He currently heads the Global and Regional Studies Centre, a foreign policy think tank of the IoBM (Institute of Business Management). He is a frequent commentator on foreign and local media.
