Diplomatic immunity and such

[RollingWave]

One of the big news in Taiwan over the last couple days is that one of our diplomatic officer stationed in Kansas was arrested by the FBI for allegedly abusing her maid (a Phillipino) . Raising once again the question of diplomatic immunity.

Now this is one issue that generally shows why many around the world are generally pissed at the US conducts across the world, the obvious double standard on issues like these, granted knowing the conditions of Phillipino maids in general I'm more than willing to believe that at least some of the accusation against this person is legit, but the problem remains of course why the FBI can arrest and trail her in the US.

This have been a serious contenious issue espeically in places like Japan and Korea, where US servicemens have more than a few times ran into trouble with the law (sometimes REALLY badly) but were never allowed to be tried by local court, and the end sentence they recieved (if they recieved any) would often be percieved as very light relative to the crime.


Some examples:

In 1992 a Korean Prostitue was murdered by a US servicemen in rather gruesome method (if you want the rather ugly details it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Am..._Geum-i_murder ) so the guy tried in the US martial court for this gruelsome act got..... 15 years and was freed after 13.

If this was bad, the next one got worse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangju_highway_incident

Here an armored vehicle running on Koraen's public road ran over two girls and no one was found guilty of anything.

This sort of vehicle accidents is probably the most common, in Korea and Japa, thoguh obviously most were not driving armoured tanks, but usually rented cars or military trucks etc... NO ONE have ever been tried by a foreign court and most weren't even convicted by US martial courts.

Legal issues such as these are obviously contenious, it is understandable why the US would want legal immunity for their troops espeically in war zones, but the rather overkill use and often not giving nearly the same leash to foreign diplomatic personals in the US (such as last years incident of cops in Houston beating up a Chinese diplomat, if the same happened to a US diplomat in a foreign country that country would be in huge trouble.) certainly don't help the perception of the USA around the world.

[Exarch]

there's a slight problem in your comparisons, RollingWave;

South Korea and Japan are vassals of the united states; the USG owns those two countries and can do with them as they wish;
yes, that means raping and beating them and to show the vassal nature of those two countries; most south koreans and japanese tacitly accept the rapes that are to come.

anyhoo, in the case of Taiwan; big powers do wat they want and little powers suffer what they must. power is the only thing hegemons respect, not the law

[Simon Cashmere]

there's a slight problem in your comparisons, RollingWave;

South Korea and Japan are vassals of the united states; the USG owns those two countries and can do with them as they wish;
yes, that means raping and beating them and to show the vassal nature of those two countries; most south koreans and japanese tacitly accept the rapes that are to come.

anyhoo, in the case of Taiwan; big powers do wat they want and little powers suffer what they must. power is the only thing hegemons respect, not the law

Lectures on the rule of law from a glory of China supporter? There is no rule of law in China, whatever the local party boss wants that's what happens. In the US, you have a constitution, and you will get a fair trial. This is just nonsense, and its the sort of nonsense that usually comes out of China. It's not only nonsense, it is demonstrably false nonsense.

If the person arrested has diplomatic immunity which belongs to Taiwan not him, he will have to be deported. His bosses though can waive it, it's their immunity - not his.

Here an armored vehicle running on Koraen's public road ran over two girls and no one was found guilty of anything.

Unless we heard all the evidence at the US Court Martial, we are not really in a position to judge whether they were responsible. If children step in front of you on a highway, unless you have magic powers you will run them over too, or with the limited visibility of the armoured vehicle they just did not see them. I doubt they deliberately tried to run them over. They had a trial and they were acquitted. The US has no qualms about court martialling its soldiers, as has been seen in many, many cases.

[yupper]

Not to quibble with your post RollingWave, but there are 'problems' with the way you've frame the incident and the examples you used. First, the U.S. troops are not 'diplomats', I don't believe they are granted protection from local prosecution under the same legal provisions that grant 'diplomatic immunity' to consular officials. They are different arrangements.

This is more along the lines of the examples you might be looking for.

Second, Taiwan is not formally recognized by the U.S. as a sovereign nation-state, in spite of Taiwan's de facto sovereign status and mutually hosting consular offices (like the 'Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office'). So Taiwan might refer to some bilateral agreement they signed with the US in the 1980's, but the Vienna Convention--a 'framework' treaty for diplomatic immunity--is not likely going to be a helpful recourse. I am not sure if or how 'diplomatic immunity' would work in this instance, but I am interested in how this pans out from the perspective of international law and international relations.

there's a slight problem in your comparisons, RollingWave;
South Korea and Japan are vassals of the united states; the USG owns those two countries and can do with them as they wish;
yes, that means raping and beating them and to show the vassal nature of those two countries; most south koreans and japanese tacitly accept the rapes that are to come.

There are a few things wrong with your....suggestions. South Korea and Japan are not "vassals." We are in the era of modern nation-states, not medieval kingdoms. Even using that word as a 'metaphor' for describing their relationship to the US would be highly inaccurate. The US does not "own" Japan and South Korea, and cannot "do with them as they wish" even if the US is a global hegemon. I realize you are just being....ostentatious in your descriptors, but...its erroneous.

Second, the South Koreans and the Japanese are not just "tacitly accepting" these incidents. There are non-governmental organizations and social movements in both countries that have been trying to persuade their governments to close the US military bases for decades (though not just because of these kinds of incidents). But in spite of their election platforms, political parties that have come to power in both countries have deemed that maintaining their current military relationship with the US is necessary to their...'national interests', even if some of them have occasionally exploited these incidents to mobilize public support and anti-American/nationalist sentiments for their electoral gain.

There is no rule of law in China, whatever the local party boss wants that's what happens. In the US, you have a constitution, and you will get a fair trial.

Hm...FYI, China has a constitution.

[Fluttershy]

there's a slight problem in your comparisons, RollingWave;

South Korea and Japan are vassals of the united states; the USG owns those two countries and can do with them as they wish;
yes, that means raping and beating them and to show the vassal nature of those two countries; most south koreans and japanese tacitly accept the rapes that are to come.

anyhoo, in the case of Taiwan; big powers do wat they want and little powers suffer what they must. power is the only thing hegemons respect, not the law

you would think you would get tired of the "China is always in the right" and the US is always bad" schtick, getting to the point were its like reading a chinese version of broseph Stalin

[Exarch]

you would think you would get tired of the "China is always in the right" and the US is always bad" schtick, getting to the point were its like reading a chinese version of broseph Stalin

nowhere in my post is there anything remotely close to "China is in the right", in fact i don't even mention the Chinese at all in that post

[yupper]

you would think you would get tired of the "China is always in the right" and the US is always bad" schtick, getting to the point were its like reading a chinese version of broseph Stalin

I don't know why China is continuously being re-inserted into this conversation. This has no direct bearings on China. At worst, the Chinese domestic media will sensationalize this rather trivial 'news' to amplify some popular Chinese stereotypes of Taiwanese people as a spoiled and greedy lot.

If anything, Taiwan would fit the definition of "client state" to the US, except for the fact that the ROC is not internationally recognized as a 'state.' From what I can tell based on the reports in the English-speaking media, there's a lot of 'posturing', especially from Taiwanese politicians who clearly need to pander to their electoral base. The US authorities don't really care about this. The live-in worker is Filipino, not American. There are millions of 'foreign workers' in the US, legal and 'illegal', and there is no reason for the State Department to take exceptional notice of one other than the fact that it involves a foreign consular official.

However, what is clear to me now is that there is probably something else going on--precisely because they took exceptional notice of this. This is the sort of embarrassing opportunity that is fabricated or exploited when there is a need to remove some foreign bureaucrat from their current position for whatever reason (like when they are suspected of espionage but there is no hard evidence, or when they are considered 'whistle blowers' who need to be preemptively constrained, etc.--this is what you do when you can't just send geishas and ninjas to assassinate them ).

At any rate, she's getting deported, and predictably the US Department of State did not agree that she was immunized by the bilateral agreement (probably because this does not pertain to carrying out her diplomatic duties).

[warluster]

Remind me - is a country allowed the right to diplomatic immunity, when the host country doesn't actually recongize it internationally? Theoreticlly, if a Palestinian diplomat committed a crime in the States during their visits, they wouldn't be entitled to immunity either. If this issue was taken to court, and every specific was examined (as you do in court!) then surely this would be a eventual issue?

Also, diplomatic immunity is the absolute protection of ambassador's within a host country - but apparently, if a serious crime is committed, this country has the right to waive the immunity and arrest the diplomat. Now, we can go for the whole 'United States is the world bully' angle, but I honestly feel that if the woman was beating her servants (which is apparently a major issue with diplomatic immunity) then the Rights of Humans should override any legalities or 'immunities', and be the higher law in these cases.. You do provide examples which show US servicemen committing crimes, but that really is a different issue... as they have no relevence to diplomatic immunity.

(Never mind. For those curious about reading the sources... they are here and here. Appparently this issue of abuse of household workers is a serious issue with diplomats.)

[yupper]

Remind me - is a country allowed the right to diplomatic immunity, when the host country doesn't actually recongize it internationally?

Yes, through bilateral agreements, like the one referenced by the Taiwanese government as the basis of diplomatic immunity in this instance.

Theoreticlly, if a Palestinian diplomat committed a crime in the States during their visits, they wouldn't be entitled to immunity either.

That's because there is no similar bilateral agreement between the US and the Palestinian Authority. Taiwan is definitely an exceptional case given it's relationship to the US.

Also, diplomatic immunity is the absolute protection of ambassador's within a host country - but apparently, if a serious crime is committed, this country has the right to waive the immunity and arrest the diplomat.

Diplomatic immunity is not 'absolute', but only pertains to breach of law incurred from activities relevant to the discharging of diplomatic duties. Now, that's broad enough to include any number of things, like traffic or parking tickets, and possibly even employment of live-in workers. Ultimately the outcome of any case involving the need to invoke diplomatic immunity is primarily determined by negotiations between official representatives from both countries, so one side cannot arbitrarily determine the outcome. Also, it's the home country that can waive diplomatic immunity, not the host country.

Now, we can go for the whole 'United States is the world bully' angle, but I honestly feel that if the woman was beating her servants (which is apparently a major issue with diplomatic immunity) then the Rights of Humans should override any legalities or 'immunities', and be the higher law in these cases.. You do provide examples which show US servicemen committing crimes, but that really is a different issue... as they have no relevence to diplomatic immunity.

The UN UDHR is not 'binding', I think you might be thinking of the Universal Bill of Human Rights. But international covenants around human rights are barely worth the papers they are printed on, even to the countries that have ratified them. In practice, they do not supersede domestic legislation (and you can swing by websites of independent organizations like the Human Rights Watch to get a sense of just how bad things are), as opposed to say, economic and trade agreements which are taken far more seriously by state leaders because there are actual repercussions for violating them.

What the Senate Committee report linked by the blog you referenced inadvertently shows is that when this sort of thing happen, officials from both countries usually try to bury them as quickly as possible and pretend they don't happen, because they are embarrassing to both countries. That this particular incident would escalate to such a stage is sort of....surprising to me (and a bit fishy).

[Condottiere 40K]

Client states. TBF, they do get a security blanket, partially subsidized, against some rather powerful and crazy neighbours.

Diplomatic immunity is based on the fact that envoys (and possibly their following) need to be sacrosanct, so that they can't be threatened or coerced, and that your envoys don't get targeted in retaliation. The privilege has tendency to be abused, considering the number of stories you hear about unpaid parking tickets, and how foreigners suspected of crimes, even caught in the act, are only subject to deportation.

[yupper]

Client states. TBF, they do get a security blanket, partially subsidized, against some rather powerful and crazy neighbours.

'Client state' refers to Cold War Soviet Satellite states, U.S. Protectorates, 'puppet regime' such as South Vietnam or Iran under the Shah, but not quite appropriate to contemporary South Korea and Japan (maybe in the past). These countries do not have to subordinate their national interests or foreign policy objectives to that of the U.S. (and they often clash), but it is often perceived to be in their own 'national interests' to align their objectives with U.S. interests in the region, particularly in relation to 'security.' Japan is simply an 'allied nation' or 'free rider', depending on how much you think it contributes to the collective interests of the 'order' being maintained by the US in the region. South Korea is a bit more....complicated, and I think I'll refrain from commenting more about that. But calling them "vassals" or "client states" is only intended to denigrate these countries rather than describe the actuality of their relationships to the U.S.

[Col. Tartleton]

I don't believe in agree with diplomatic immunity. Or diplomacy for that matter...

[Exarch]

i agree;
the next time secstate clinton visits Iran or north korea; the north koreans and Iranians should send back a diplomatic message in the form of Hilary Clinton's head.

[Farnan]

Umm I'm in Korea now. US troops get tried by the ROK government all the time. Please try to avoid talking out of your ass in the future.

[RollingWave]

Umm I'm in Korea now. US troops get tried by the ROK government all the time. Please try to avoid talking out of your ass in the future.

Your right, I stand corrected, I was still looking at the 90s cases and didn't notice that in recent years in Korea and Japan some cases are tried by their local court, though the irony and implication (and the fact that the US decided to completely pull out of Iraq because of the unwillingness to grant the same to the Iraqi gov) of such is a whole nother bag of worm.

[Farnan]

Your right, I stand corrected, I was still looking at the 90s cases and didn't notice that in recent years in Korea and Japan some cases are tried by their local court, though the irony and implication (and the fact that the US decided to completely pull out of Iraq because of the unwillingness to grant the same to the Iraqi gov) of such is a whole nother bag of worm.

Most cases are tried by local courts in Korea. Only cases where it wouldn't be is if the ROK waived jurisdiction (usually the case only in US on US crimes) or it was done in the line of duty (mostly applies to accidents on convoys, which is good as in South Korea driving laws are just suggestions).

What the US wanted in Iraq was the line of duty exemption from local courts which wasn't granted by Iraq.

[Simon Cashmere]

Hm...FYI, China has a constitution.

I was actually well placed to know that. But its courts are corrupt, as are its police, and there is no such thing as a fair trial for anyone. Having a constitution or any amount of laws does not mean that they are put into practice or adhered to. Whatever the communist party says, goes, there is no independent judiciary, and hence, no rule of law.

Diplomatic immunity is not 'absolute', but only pertains to breach of law incurred from activities relevant to the discharging of diplomatic duties.

We went through all of this before in another thread about the CIA guy in Pakistan.

The immunity is absolute. The Ambassador for Mexico to the USA could shoot someone in the street in the US, and if Mexico did not waive his immunity, the most that the US could do would be send him back to Mexico. Usually if someone does something bad enough, the host country is prepared to waive immunity. But not always.

I think you are confusing consular immunity with full diplomatic immunity, consular immunity is more limited.

[yupper]

We went through all of this before in another thread about the CIA guy in Pakistan.

The immunity is absolute. The Ambassador for Mexico to the USA could shoot someone in the street in the US, and if Mexico did not waive his immunity, the most that the US could do would be send him back to Mexico. Usually if someone does something bad enough, the host country is prepared to waive immunity. But not always.

I think you are confusing consular immunity with full diplomatic immunity, consular immunity is more limited.

First, 'diplomatic immunity' is -not- "absolute" (I don't know which thread you are referring to but if the source you are citing to support your claim that it is "absolute" is some message thread on a gaming forum, this is going to be a very short conversation). Here is a booklet from the US Department of State that provides some non-legal jargon explanations about the different categories of diplomat and consular officials, and what privileges they are entitled to. You are thinking of 'diplomatic immunity' as it pertains only to the highest ranking diplomatic officials (e.g. 'ambassador'), but they are not the only diplomatic agents who enjoy 'diplomatic immunity.'

Second, no one mentioned anything about 'consular immunity', which is what you grant to low-mid level foreign mission personnel. Hsien-Hsien Liu is the director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Kansas City, she's not some "contract security official" or a desk clerk who processes student visas. Since the ROC is not formally recognized as a sovereign nation state by the US, I am not sure if there is even anyone who informally fulfills the function of a "Taiwanese ambassador", which might then make the various regional Taiwanese 'director-generals' the highest level of Taiwanese diplomat officials in the US. Her 'equivalent status' might be that of a 'consul general', but only if the US recognize it as such.

Third, precisely because Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign nation state, Taiwan is basically at the whim of the US in this instance, because while Taiwanese officials would love to use the Vienna Convention as a recourse, and is arguing that she is a high ranking diplomatic official who is protected by 'diplomatic immunity', the Vienna Convention does not literally support that claim since Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign nation state. The US can arrest Liu and toss her into gen-pop if they want, because who can the Taiwanese government appeal to? This is why that entire thread about Pakistan that you referenced is completely irrelevant here.

This is also why the position taken by the US Department of State in this case is not that she is not entitled to 'diplomatic immunity', but that she has "immunity only for acts performed within the scope of their authorized functions." This recognizes the US has (informal) diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but does not overstep that recognition by treating Taiwan as a sovereign nation state (because then, China would protest, and they have far more international leverage than Taiwan).

On a side note, in practice, an ambassador can get away with murder in the host country, only because s/he is the highest ranking diplomatic official--and not all high level diplomatic officials who enjoy "diplomatic immunity" are so fully insulated. In such instances, while the ambassador is not personally prosecuted in the host country, the home country can be (and usually are) 'punished' by the host country though all sorts of diplomatic and economic retaliations.

I was actually well placed to know that. But its courts are corrupt, as are its police, and there is no such thing as a fair trial for anyone. Having a constitution or any amount of laws does not mean that they are put into practice or adhered to. Whatever the communist party says, goes, there is no independent judiciary, and hence, no rule of law.

I have no idea what you mean by "I was actually well placed to know that." Does that mean you were one of the people who participated in the (re)drafting of the current PRC constitution? Because while there are many, many serious problems with the political and judicial system in China, what you have articulated here is a rather vague and erroneous mis-characterization of those problems, and a gross simplification at best. There are books and journal articles that have been written by Western legal scholars who have followed the development of the PRC's political and judicial systems. This is the kind of stuff one might hear from Glenn Beck, or maybe find in the TWC 'Mud Pit.' I was under the impression, perhaps erroneously, that the 'Political Academy' is held to a higher standard.

And I still do not understand why people keep re-inserting comments about China's judicial or political system into this conversation--they have zero bearing on this case.

This incident may be 'big news' in Taiwan, but most people in the US couldn't give a damn--probably more so in China. This is what China Post had to say:

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/f...S-responds.htm

Predictably, unlike most of the Taiwanese news reports, they've spun the story to (re)emphasize the US-Taiwan 'alliance' and downplayed any tensions generated by this incident. I am still wondering how this escalated to such a point. Tensions like this is not something the US would want to to see when this is happening.

[YuriVII]

Diplomatic Immunity is important even though it can easily be abused. It is important that state actors are not harassed by domestic police for political reasons. Without diplomatic immunity you would not be able to have diplomacy because they would be subject to political whims of other nations....and I couldn't have drove down in Alabama to New Orleans smoking a blunt with the son of an Arab diplomat during college. Very important things.

[Erebus Pasha]

Lets keep the thread on-topic and reduce it to a discussion about a particular member