Diplomatic Immunity

"I want to come here to express our deepest regret for those tragic events and to express the sorrow of the American people for the loss of life that has taken place. We are deeply, deeply sorry for that tragic incident." U.S. Senator John Kerry

When countries exchange diplomatic envoys there is a certain measure of respect and protection given under international treaties on behalf of the diplomatic corps. That old adage, 'don't shoot the messenger' has application here. Of course diplomats dispatched to foreign countries to represent their own countries' interests are expected to obey the laws of the country to which they have been assigned. When in Rome certainly applies.

It is a sign of respect to the host country, for no country likes to see their laws and customs given short shrift by foreigners. Among the diplomatic community it is common enough for minor infractions to occur say, in traffic laws, and for those infractions, though irritating to the host country, forgiven. The diplomatic corps are supposed to be composed of people especially trained in the niceties and formalities of diplomacy.

It is not very diplomatic or courteous, to say the least, when diplomats assigned to represent their countries behave in a manner seen to be insulting to the host country; when that happens their usefulness is destroyed. Yet, again, diplomats are notorious for flaunting minor laws, and they are also, as a group within host countries, resented for that flaw in diplomatic behaviour.

Another common enough failure in diplomacy is the tendency of some diplomatic representatives to drink too much alcohol and disport themselves in a manner not conducive to earning the respect either of their colleagues or their counterparts in the host country. It does happen that drunk driving charges are set aside, but the offending diplomat is relieved of his duty. As happened to a Russian diplomat who ran down and killed a pedestrian, in Ottawa.

Very bad feelings can result between the two countries when such incidents occur. And when two countries come to loggerheads about a truly egregious lapse in behaviour it quite defeats the purpose of diplomatic relations. Pakistan is outraged that a man whom the U.S. claims has diplomatic immunity killed two Pakistanis.

Who were, it is true, thieves, and attempting to rob the man as he sat in his vehicle at a busy intersection in Lahore, but Raymond Davis, the man whose role with the U.S. Embassy has not been made quite clear, shot to kill, even shooting one of the men attempting to escape, in the back. These were not warning shots.

To compound the horror, another diplomatic car ostensibly coming to the aid of Mr. Davis, ran over and killed a third Pakistani. Now the United States is invoking diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. However, in the clear-cut case of such reckless abandonment of restraint in the disproportionate response of Mr. Davis to the thieving aspirations of two men, does immunity apply?

Very few countries would agree that they would not prosecute such a criminal act on their soil. And an already tension-fraught relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been exacerbated by this incident. With Pakistan insisting the case must be dealt with by its courts, awaiting its foreign ministry response to whether it agrees that the man has diplomatic immunity.

And the United States insisting that the man is a legitimate diplomat with immunity, and that while what occurred was most unfortunate and regrettable, he should be turned over to U.S. authorities to enable them to deal with the matter. Insisting that they will institute their own investigation into the incident.

"We're going to be continuing to work with the Pakistani government to get this person released", insisted U.S. President Barack Obama. Diplomatic immunity was critical to ensure that there are no vulnerabilities in the protection of diplomats delivering tough messages not well taken by a host country, he claims.

"That's untenable. It means they can't do their job", he explained. Not much of an argument, nor an explanation for what occurred. Which was that an American was trigger-happy and dispatched two minor crooks. Were that to have happened in the United States with a foreign diplomat killing two Americans, we can be assured the U.S. would insist on revoking immunity.

In the United States, even a domestic incident is handled in a manner as to support the right to life of people, regardless of provocation. Had such an incident happened in any American state, with an armed man protecting his home from invaders by shooting them to death, it would have resulted in a criminal trial not favourable to the shooter.