CROSSING THE RED LINE

Jul 06, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

There seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what constitutes non-interference in the internal affairs of a country.
It has been suggested, in some sections, that this principle is being conveniently brandished by the PPP, because when it was in opposition, it had lobbied the United States to take a position on the holding of free and fair elections in Guyana, but now that the United States wants local government elections, it is deeming US support for such elections as meddling in the internal affairs of the country.
It is concluded, the PPP did in the past not consider such stances by the US administration as interference in the internal affairs, but it does now that the outgoing US Ambassador is critical of the government for not holding local government elections.
This column seeks to clarify the concept of non-interference in the internal affairs of the country and to demonstrate that the outgoing US Ambassador did cross the red line between securing the interests of his country and meddling in the internal affairs of Guyana.
Non-interference in the internal affairs of a country is a diplomatic principle. It is a rule that guides relations between countries who have decided to establish diplomatic relations. The relations between these states and particularly the conduct of its emissaries are expected to be guided by practices and rules that have evolved over time, and are now considered an integral part of international law and diplomatic practice.
In his book, A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice, Dr. Biswanath Sen spent some time outlining the concept of non-interference and what this means for diplomatic practice. He also discusses in his book what constitutes interference.
What follows here is based on the principles that he outlines. And for the record, Dr. Sen is considered a foremost authority on the issue of diplomatic practice.
The first point that he makes is that in relations between states there are reciprocal responsibilities. The receiving State is required to ensure that there are no hindrances to an ambassador doing his job. In turn, the ambassador is required to respect the laws of the host country and not meddle in the internal affairs of the receiving State.
He notes that it is the duty of the diplomat to represent his country’s interest and nationals in the receiving State and as he puts it, to “strive to increase its influence… and obtain advantages for his nationals”. By extension, those advantages also include advantages for multinationals of the diplomat’s country.
It is not unusual, for example, for the US Embassy to make strong representation and take positions on issues that affect US companies operating in Guyana. The US Embassy, it should be recalled, took a position on the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project because it was obligated to represent the interests of a US company that was putting together the financing of the deal.
But going even further back, declassified documents revealed the behind-the-scenes arm twisting that the US diplomatic corps exercised on the Burnham regime when he decided to nationalize US concerns in the bauxite industry. So powerful was this arm- twisting that the nationalization ended up being a buyout of the company.
In the case of the hydroelectric project, which the joint opposition has disapproved, the US embassy made its interests known. But it did not descend into attacking any of the opposition personalities that jettisoned this deal. To have done so would have been to have move from the position of merely attending to the interests of the United States and to have meddled in the internal affairs of the country.
If it is in a foreign power’s interest to promote free and fair elections, that foreign power is free to express support for free and fair elections. It is also free to lobby local politicians to do so and to give support to this process.  This is permissible in diplomatic practice and does not constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a country. But to support a grouping contesting an election is. And to personally criticize a government leader for not holding free and fair elections would cross the proverbial line between promoting your country’s interest and meddling in the internal affairs of another country.
If a US Ambassador believes that it is in his country’s interest for Guyana to have free and fair elections, then he is free to urge, encourage and support the holding of such elections. He is equally free to urge the holding of local government elections. He is free to publicly express his country’s support for such a process. But in expressing such support, he cannot criticize a Head of State.
Dr. Sen is very clear that the diplomat cannot, in any semblance, insult the government and its institutions. That is crossing the red line. It is undiplomatic and oversteps the boundaries of propriety. It is totally unacceptable.

---

---