I agree with Freddie in condemning US Ill-Treatment of Diplomat

Dec 30, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I agree with my friend Freddie condemning the ill-treatment of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade and the wage pittance paid to domestic hands and other lower income workers (KN Dec 29).
But I wish to clarify that Devyani (Dep. Consul General) was/is not entitled to full immunity and the US did not violate international law (IL) in charging her for breaking American law. Seizing her passport may be a violation of IL. However, while the grounds given for this very unusual U.S action may be morally and or legally sustainable, it is condemnable as the US could have pursued another angle to resolve a petty violation of US law.
From my doctoral studies in International Relations, Consular Generals and their staff, as distinguished from Ambassadors and their staff, do not have full diplomatic immunity according to the Vienna Convention Rules of 1961 and ‘63.
The convention states that notwithstanding the several privileges and immunities diplomats and consular officers are entitled to, they must respect the laws and regulations of the host State.  Thus, the US could charge violators. But as Freddie states, you don’t apply the rule to representatives of friendly democracies; it is done in a rare case of tit for tat. The US State Dept could have quietly met Indian diplomats and resolve the issue rather than taking action to turn it into a public spectacle that embarrass both governments. It has forced the Indian government to pursue tit for tact actions demanding to know who much Americans are paying domestic servants and workers in India, taxes paid, etc.  India also withdrew non-essential privileges to American diplomats (like unlimited duty free items and free passes to all kinds of events and tourist places, etc).  Protection barriers were also removed around the US diplomatic offices making them easy targets of terror.
Devyani is charged with lying on a visa application how much she plans to pay for a domestic servant. Every diplomat from third world countries (and some Second World countries) in the U.S and the West has told the same lie, because none of them can afford to pay the local minimum wage when their own pay, even with the foreign allowance, is not even that much. The US knows this fact because it has access to all bank accounts and everyone’s wages. Yet, the US government does not prosecute others for violating the law and if it wishes to enforce the law, then the court system will be tied up with so many prosecutions it will take a century to clear the logs.  Let the US try arresting and prosecuting Chinese or Russian diplomats or CGs; the Chinese and Russians will make the American government heads spin.
I am not defending or justifying low pay for domestics; but it is a reality one needs to understand in context and not formulate incorrect conclusions about abuse. Domestic hands in the US are paid more than what they made/make in their home countries.  I had dinner at residences of a few Indian diplomats and met domestics; none ever complained of being exploited and or abused and I did not notice any evidence.
They get free housing, meals and gifts and at times clothing. Thus, their expenses are almost nil. And on some days, they hardly worked, as for example when the diplomats (families) are out of town, which is often.  Taken all of this into context, the minimum wage is more than the mandated $7.50 an hour. By the way, $7.50 an hour ($1200 monthly or $900 after tax) is woefully inadequate to maintain a person in America where rent goes for $1000 monthly and utilities another $200 plus $300 for food and $100 for mass transit. This helps to partly explain why Americans are in deficit spending – especially among the lower working class.
The Devyani matter was taken up by the US court because the domestic, Sangeeta Richard, filed a complaint that she was not being paid her full pay (US $4500 – more than what the highest Indian diplomats make). Reports say she first asked Devyani to release her from work obligation so she can settle and work in the US. Then she attempted to blackmail Devyani to report her to the US authority for visa violation unless she was paid US$10K. Devyani reported her to the Indian government. Charges were filed against Sangeeta in a Mumbai court relating to her work contract.  She absconded and went to the US authority to file a complaint against Devyani. India sought her extradition. When the matter comes up for a hearing, in all likelihood, India will seek her extradition and request the matter be consolidated and tried in Mumbai since the first complaint was filed there.
Sangeeta will find herself in trouble; she will have to stand trial in Mumbai as the US will have to fulfill India’s request to extradite her. In the end, I think Sangeeta will ask that charges be dropped against Devyani in exchange that she remains (perhaps illegally) in the U.S as she will be denied refugee status because there is no fear of persecution in India.
It is not clear if the activities (wages of a staff member) of a diplomat’s home fall under the purview of US law since offices and homes of foreign governments are considered as independent state in terms of international law; that issue was never tested in international court under the rules of the Vienna Convention.
The US has been criticized for seeking full compliance of the Vienna rules when it comes to its properties and diplomatic workers overseas but does not adhere to them itself in the US.
As I noted, Devyani was at the time of her arrest not entitled to immunity of violating US law.  But she has been transferred to the UN Mission that now gives her full immunity. I doubt she is entitled to retroactive immunity from US charges relating to the visa violation. I believe in the end all charges against her will be dropped and her Indian passport returned to her as it is not the property of US. The US action was unnecessary damaging friendly relations.
Name supplied

---

---