Diplomats’ undiplomatic ways

Diplomats acting and speaking in violation of their mandates are causing some concern in State circles on account of the possible interstate repercussions of their conduct.

This is a matter of the gravest concern. It is almost a sacred principle in interstate relations that diplomats do not comment on or probe matters pertaining to the internal affairs of the host state. The diplomat’s essential function is to watch his country’s interests in the host country.

It is also his responsibility to ensure that relations between his country and the host state are conducted smoothly. An attempt on his part to probe or comment on particularly the sensitive political issues of the host state would be a violation of these principles which are both time-honoured and tested.

We need to recount these do’s and don’ts in diplomatic practice because not all Colombo-based diplomats are observing them. Recently there were reports of two Western diplomats visiting the Editor of a newspaper which is privately-owned and more accommodative of the viewpoints of some opposition parties.

Newspapers are, of course, free to espouse the causes of the Opposition, but for diplomats to break protocol and enter a newspaper Editor’s office with, apparently, the aim of probing intra-state issues, is something to be wondered at. Whereas diplomats are expected to observe strict neutrality on issues pertaining to the host state, this move by the diplomats is a gross violation of the code of conduct expected of them.

Given this backdrop, the State is perfectly justified in taking a tough position on errant diplomats. The State has no choice but to protect its sovereign rights and it would be doing just this by taking to task those diplomats who do not keep within the bounds of sound diplomatic practice and principles.

In the interstate system, there are no ‘big’ and ‘small’ states. All states enjoy sovereign equality in terms of the UN Charter which regulates international relations at present. The so-called big states of the system would not under any circumstances endure interference by any actor in their internal affairs.

This is the way it should be because every state enjoys the right to self-determination. It shapes its present and future in accordance with its legitimate interests. There is no denying this. However, the so-called big states of the system need to remember that every state enjoys these inviolable rights, whether ‘big’ or ‘small’. These rights should be respected by all, come what may.

We wonder whether the major states of the world would endure interference in their affairs by the so-called smaller states? One could be sure that these smaller states would be swiftly taken to task by the bigger powers and that too with all the arrogance and might at their command.

So let the sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander. This principle none could violate. For, it is a basis for international harmony.