As
much as I detest the Iranian regime and their global aggression against
our interests and Israel’s existence, I felt a visceral twitch when I
heard of the April 1 Israeli attack which destroyed Iran’s Damascus
consulate. Even though the attack eliminated a number of Iranian Quds
force members – a group dedicated to Israel’s extinction - including a
Senior Commander, I suspect every one of my diplomatic colleagues around
the world, immaterial of their nationality or views on Iran, felt the
same qualms. A few days later, on April 5, a similar but less fatal
incident occurred when Ecuadorian security forces stormed the Mexican
Embassy in Quito and arrested former Ecuadorian Vice President Jorge
Glas who had been convicted of corruption and sought asylum in Mexico’s
Embassy.
Demonstrators wave Iran's flag as they gather at
Palestine Square in Tehran on April 14, 2024, after Iran launched a
drone and missile attack on Israel. Iran's Revolutionary Guards
confirmed early April 14, 2024 that a drone and missile attack was under
way against Israel in retaliation for a deadly April 1 drone strike on
its Damascus consulate.
These aggressive actions
should not happen – immaterial of how hostile the relations between the
attacking party and the country the diplomatic premises represents, or
the country hosting it. Immunity of diplomats and diplomatic
establishments is one of the oldest principles in relations between
nations, going back to antiquity and based on reciprocity. In addition
to the people conducting diplomacy, where they do it from, and where
they live in the host country, all expect and deserve inviolability.
This benefits both the sending and receiving state, since each wants
their diplomats and diplomatic premises protected. But this concept of
“inviolability” of people and premises has also made diplomatic
establishments attractive to prominent persons on the run from the law
or mobs to seek protection in foreign embassies. In past centuries, with
its recurring coups resulting in a revolving door of presidents coming
and going, Latin America was a hotbed of leaders seeking asylum in
foreign embassies. And it was in the new rulers’ interest to respect the
sanctity of embassies offering refuge because they could very well be
the ones seeking asylum down the line.
The most recent
international agreements formalizing rules related to diplomatic
immunity and the inviolability of diplomatic premises are contained in
two treaties: The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (193
parties) and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (183
parties). One of the bedrock principles is that the receiving state is
obligated to protect the diplomats and diplomatic establishments of the
sending state. So, there is no question that Ecuadorian security forces
had no right to invade the Mexican Embassy, and it is also perfectly
understandable why Mexico cut relations with Ecuador. The international
response was universal condemnation of Ecuador’s aggression.
But
the Israeli action is murkier under the conventions – since it was a
third state (Israel) attacking a diplomatic establishment (Iran’s) in
Syria. Technically, the Syrian Government had an obligation to protect
Iran’s diplomatic premises from all attacks, but realistically it could
not do so given Israel’s capabilities. But even if international law
experts hold that Israel did not contravene the letter of the
Conventions, is there any doubt that it broke the spirit that diplomatic
establishments are inviolable? I recall the international uproar the US
caused in 1999 when it bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing
three Chinese journalists – at a time when US-Chinese relations were
still friendly. The Clinton Administration explained that it was a
mistake caused by faulty maps, but the Chinese didn’t believe us. I was
Deputy Ambassador in Togo at the time and my own personal relations with
Chinese colleagues went from warm to ice cold in a day.
My angst
over Israel’s bombing was of course complicated by the deep irony that
in 1979 the Iranian Government stood by when students overran our
Embassy in Tehran and held our entire diplomatic staff – including some
of my friends - as hostages under the harshest of conditions for 444
days. So, Iran’s loud protests over Israel’s attack breaking
international law do contain a large dose of hypocrisy.
But, in
my view, the principle that diplomats and their premises must not be
attacked is sacrosanct. The US has 271 embassies and consulates in 173
countries with which our relations range from warm and friendly to
frigid and hostile. For our own people to be able to do their work
advancing and protecting American interests, they need to be assured
that they, their families, and their premises are safe and protected –
no matter how hostile the environment in which they operate.
On
this issue, at least, I have no doubt that even our bitterest
adversaries agree. China, for example, has even more diplomatic
facilities than the US and their diplomats deserve the same protections
as ours. There are good reasons why this principle has existed since
diplomats, perhaps the second oldest profession, took the field, and
it’s in everyone’s interest to keep it. Our world is dangerous enough –
imagine how much worse it would be if diplomats were unable to practice
their craft because of constant fears over their own safety. As Prussian
General Carl Von Clausewitz said, “war is a continuation of politics by
other means.” Diplomacy is one of the means to prevent war and other
bad things from happening.
Ambassador Tibor Nagy was most
recently Assistant Secretary of State for Africa after serving as Texas
Tech’s Vice Provost for International Affairs and a 30-year career as a
US Diplomat. Follow him on Twitter @TiborPNagyJr