re: "diplomacy"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Jack_Savage's comment of Friday, February 10th at 8:40 AM EST(link).

Jack Savage said:

"When we are in a foreign land, aren’t we ALL diplomats?"

My response:

"Only when we screw up.

Seriously, I got that same briefing as a Private (E-2) in Germany back during the Bad Old Days (TM) of The Cold War as well.

So in a broad-swath philosophical sense that’s true.

From a perspective of international law (specifically the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), anybody we send over on a diplomatic passport (IF THEY ARE GRANTED A DIPLOMATIC VISA BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT) is a “diplomat.”

But in terms of reality, it’s our Foreign Service Officers (FSO; both from State, USAID, and Dept. of Commerce “Foreign Commercial Service) and Foreign Service Specialists (FSS) who are “actual” diplomats by training and profession.

You could add to that some (but not all) of the various attaches (such as military ones) from other government “tenant agencies” as they get specialized training for working in a diplomatic environment."


2/11

re: "Triumphs Of Smart Diplomacy: #28,764"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") noted the failure of a host nation to protect an embassy.

Money quote(s):

"The seizure of the embassy of a foreign nation is normally considered an act of war."

Sure, when a government does it.

On the other hand, when a government fails to protect a diplomatic mission, it fails in its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It's less clear to me that this can/should be considered an act of war.

Lots of things can be considered to be causus belli, but if every government went to war every time something that could be considered an act of war happened, then there'd be a lot more wars.

9/9

re: "Ministry of Irony: President Obama Stiff Brits' Green Fines"

Howie at The Jawa Report ("Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.") quotes a news story citing the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

By the way, Pres. Obama is correct in this instance.

re: "Suddenly, States Have Authority Over Aliens"

Federale ("Federal Service Guarantees Citizenship") examines some of the technicalities differentiating consular and diplomatic immunities.

Money quote(s):

"(N)ow that the Punjab State government in Pakistan has arrested an American diplomat and are holding him in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the radical left is on the war path, defending the right of a State government to arrest and hold a diplomat.

As is usual with the left, they deceive their readers. They claim that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 authorizes the arrest"

&

"(D)espite the selective quotations from the Reds, Davis is not a consular officer, but a diplomatic officer, covered by Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which is quite stricter regarding arresting and holding diplomats as opposed to consular officers. But Counterpunch and their writer Dave Lindorff are either too dumb to know the difference between a diplomatic officer and a consular officer or they know and act to deceive"

Be sure to read the final paragraph: training matters; "Lack of training kills."