Protecting  our  diplomats

I am sure that the vast majority of people around the world were shocked when they learned of the fatal attack by a mob of Libyans on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 12, 2012. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed as a direct attack on the Consulate which was part of a wave of assaults on U.S. diplomatic missions in Muslim countries because of their anger at the showing of a silly low-budget movie made in the United States that denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. However,  those leading the mob that attackled the US consulate in Benghazi were terrorists who planned the attack ahead of time.

 
Although the militias, which are the legacy of the revolutionary brigades that fought Gadhafi in the civil war have taken on roles as security, guarding state facilities and neighborhoods, they also are accused of acting like gangs, detaining people, intimidating critics and clashing in the streets.

What is really shocking is that the Libyan government didn’t have any members of the Libyan army or police outside the Consulate protecting the Consulate and the people inside it. The small number of Libyan security forces that were at the scene withdrew because they were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The government should have brought in more of army soldiers and police to the Consulate so that as a group, they wouldn’t be outgunned.

Guards and Philippine police’s Special Forces carrying assault rifles were outside the US embassy on September 13^th, along with a pickup truck bearing a machine-gun that was parked under a nearby tree. Now if they had that kind of firepower outside the Consulate in Benghazi, the four men in the Consulate wouldn’t have been killed by the mob.

The 1961 and 1963 Vienna Conventions of Diplomatic Relations and Consular Relations, are the principle agreements on the protection of international officials.  Article 22 of the 1961 Convention says in part;

1.        The premises of the mission shall be inviolable.

2    The receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

Libya was a signatory to that 1961 Convention and yet, it failed to adhere to those two sections of Article 22 of that Convention. 

 The Libyan government would probably claim that they didn’t anticipate a problem with the Americans having a Consulate in their country but that was a horrible mistake on their part. Even while the Consulate was under attack, there were no Libyan soldiers or police nearby to protect the Consulate from the mob. The government didn’t even send an ambulance to the Consulate when Stevens and the others were brought out of the building. Stevens who was only semi-conscious had to be taken to the hospital in a private car. He died in the hospital.

 When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on December 7^th 1941, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull sent a telegram to the Japanese government advising them that the American government would take all necessary steps to see that absolute protection was accorded the Japanese official establishments and Japanese officials within the American jurisdiction. The Japanese envoy and the Japanese ambassador and his Japanese staff left the United States unmolested and were on their way to Japan within days. The American ambassador and his staff in Japan were also permitted to leave Japan and fly back to the United States. The same courtesies were given when Germany declared war on the United States on that same date.

After a series of political kidnappings in Latin America, the Organization of American States in 1971 drafted an agreement with respect to the protection  of diplomats from terrorism. The countries in Latin America that signed the agreement pledged to cooperate amongst themselves to prevent and punish terrorists who harm diplomats. 

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (also referred to as the Protection of Diplomats Convention) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14^th of December 1973. It is one of a series of sectoral anti-terrorism conventions negotiated within the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It built on the codification conventions in the field of privileges and immunities, including the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.

A particular difficulty (as with other anti-terrorism conventions) arose over the question of national liberation movements. The solution eventually found was to include a paragraph in the resolution adopting the Convention (resolution 3166 (XXVIII)), in which the General Assembly considered that its provisions “could not in any way prejudice the exercise of the legitimate right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States by peoples struggling against colonialism, alien domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination and apartheid. This was acceptable because it could be read as not purporting to make any exception to the crimes covered by the Convention or to qualify in any way the obligations assumed by States parties to the Convention. Strangely enough, the Assembly decided that the resolution should be published together with the Convention.

 The Convention’s central provision requires that a person alleged to have committed certain serious attacks against diplomats and other “internationally protected persons” should either be extradited or have his or her case submitted to the authorities for the purposes of prosecution. President Obama has stated that these people that attacked the Consulate in Libya should be arrested and punished. The Libyan government did in fact arrest a number of suspects with respect to that attack on the Consulate in Benghazi.

 Murder, kidnapping for ransom and making demands, letter bombs, assault and harassment of diplomats is unfortunately commonplace around the world. As long as the current scourge of international terrorism continues and the constant conflicts in the Middle East are not abated, the dangers diplomats, especially American diplomats face will continue to be a serious problem for them.   

In a speech given by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of States on September 14^th 2012,  she said;

“The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.” unquote

This raises an interesting question. “Why were there no US security personnel in that Consulate in Benghazi when the mob attacked it?” If there had been, and they fired machine guns at those who were attempting to enter the Consulate, I doubt the mob would have got very far into the building; certainly not with ten or more of their fellow thug’s bodies lying on the ground ahead of them.

 President Barack Obama ordered increased security at U.S. sites worldwide after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. U.S. officials said the heightened security would be maintained indefinitely. Unfortunately however, that was being too smart, too late. That is something they should have done long before the attack on the American Consulate in Libya. Common sense surely must have been lacking in the West Wing of the White House when you consider that American embassies and consulates in the Middle East have been the scenes of violent protests for several years and those protests were primed to explode at the slightest excuse of alleged wrongdoings on the part of the Americans. As to be expected, the explosion took place when a silly provocative film that insulted Islam’s holiest prophet was shown on the internet. By the time of that explosion, Obama’s rhetorical firemen (who were supposed to be on top of this problem) were still sleeping in their beds dreaming of sugar cakes and plum pudding instead of rolling out the hoses to fight the ensuing fire that was about to engulf them.

While it is true that the primary responsibility for protection of diplomats lies with the host country, the United States through the State Department’s Office of Security, uses marines known as Marine Security Guards to provide additional protection for diplomatic outposts. Originally they protected the buildings and the secured locations for the secret codes but as the years progressed and terrorism raised its ugly head, the role of the marines became more directed towards the person el of the embassies and consulates.

Kenneth W Knauf, a past assistant director of the State Department’s Office of Security said in 1973, when speaking of foreign governments protecting diplomats in their countries; “The problem is if they give extra protection to America diplomats, they will have the entire diplomatic community screaming for more protection too.”

Consequently, the US government took steps on its own to strengthen protective security abroad. They brought in more follow cars with radios installed in them, contingency plans for quick response to terrorist attacks, additional security officers and Marine guards, amongst other improvements.

Knauf also said that terrorism would end in about four years. He was wrong by almost forty years. In my opinion, it is going to be a very long time before terrorism finally comes to an end. This is why the US and other nations should take greater cautions to protect their diplomats, their staff and families and the buildings also. 

The protection of diplomats cannot be separated from the broader problems of terrorism throughout the world. Many of the incidents of terrorism are traced to the bitter, explosive and ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli relations with the Palestinians and because the Americans have been supporters of Israel for decades (and correctly so) the problems are intensified.

The late Dr. George Habash, who was the head of the terrorist organization, the ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’, articulated an interesting philosophy of his at a 1970 revolutionary symposium held in North Korea when he said in part;

“There can be no political or geographical boundaries or moral limits to the operations of the people’s camp. In today’s world, no one is innocent, no one is neutral.” unquote  

This kind of megalomaniac form of statement trying to justify terrorism strains the authorities in trying to control it and it is only very recently that the need to increase the protection of diplomats and their staff and embassies and consulates has become absolutely necessary.

As an interesting aside, the word `diplomacy` is relatively recent as far as history is concerned. It is derived from the Greek word, ‘diploma’ which in Greek literally means, folded papers used for state charters and licences. However, the concept of diplomacy is as old as civilization itself. Distrust of foreigners was almost universal back then so it was necessary to permit envoys to remain in the various foreign countries and as to be expected, the protection of them had to be observed. The republic of Venice was among the first to establish permanent missions in rival city-states and it also maintained envoys in France, Spain and Switzerland. 

In 1975 while I was at the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, giving an address on terrorism, I had several meetings with Faisal Ouida, who was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) observer to the United Nations.  Canada was concerned about the safety of the participants of the upcoming Olympic Games that was to be held in Montreal, Canada in 1976. The Canadian government had previously stated that it would not talk with the PLO and yet it was deeply concerned that the terrorist organization, the ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ would commit further acts of terrorism at the Games in 1972 like they did when they killed the Israelis during the Games in Munich four years earlier. I got a commitment from the PLO that they would do what it could to prevent a recurrence of that happening again. I in turn promised the PLO that they could have an office in Ottawa, the capital of Canada in three years time if they kept their word. The PLO kept its word and the Canadian government kept my word. Three years later, the PLO had a representative in their office in Ottawa. Just before the commencement of the First Gulf War with Iraq, the Iraqi dictator, Saddam was holding Canadian hostages. The Canadian government asked the PLO representative in Ottawa to speak to Arafat who was the chairmen of the PLO and who was also a friend of Saddam. They wanted Arafat to speak on Canada’s behalf to Saddam to get the hostages out of Iraq. He was successful and the hostages were permitted to return to Canada.  I have brought these two events to your attention because at the time I was negotiating with Faisal Ouida, I was acting as an ordinary citizen and not officially as a delegate to the UN and Faisal Ouida was acting as an ordinary citizen, negotiating with me on behalf of the PLO and as such, he too was not a delegate in the UN headquarters acting officially for the Palestinians. It is a common practice for ordinary citizens to be asked to negotiate settlements because they can speak unofficially in case something goes wrong. 

Of course, I didn’t need protection from the PLO but when I was in Milan addressing a UN conference in 1985 about what I thought should be done with terrorists once they are captured, my speech was broadcasted all over Italy and published in newspapers world-wide so there was some considerable concern about my safety. The Italian army that was in charge of the security of the delegates and the experts (as we are called by the UN) decided to have me tailed by a member of the army who was armed and in plain clothes to make sure that no harm came to me while I was in Milan.

 It is ironic when you think about. It appeared that the Italians were more concerned about protecting me in Italy in 1985 than the United States was in protecting their ambassador and his three assistants in Libya in 2012.  That is a sad commentary of our times.