Is the principle of the sanctity of an embassy more important than the lives of human beings?
Yesterday in Ottawa, where I live, there was a riot in front of the Congolese embassy, with angry Congolese ex-patriates trying to fight their way in, breaking windows, throwing paint, and clashing with riot police. This got me thinking about a subject I’ve pondered in the past, and I went down to chat with the demonstrators, police, and reporters, to see what their opinions were regarding the question I’m about to pose to you. Out of all the people I asked, only one was able to come down on one side or the other, and even he qualified his answer when he gave it.
Embassies exist in order to facilitate communication between nations. Because matters as momentous as war and peace ride on these communications, embassies are (in theory) regarded as sacrosanct. Yet there is a long history of violation of this sanctity. For example, we now know that the Soviets used prostitutes to lure the Marine Corps guards away from their posts at the US Embassy in Moscow so that the building could be throroughly bugged. Likewise, when a sniper in the Iranian embassy on London began shooting at police, the UK police invaded the embassy and violated its sanctity to get him.
Given that the stakes can involve the destruction of the entire human race by global thermonuclear holocaust, my question is, do you believe the stakes are so high that the principle of diplomatic immunity and the sanctity of embassies is more important than the lives and safety of a smaller number of actual human beings? For example, should the British police simply have endured the snipings and erected a wall in front of the embassy? Should the police here have used deadly force to protect the (unoccupied) Congolese embassy here rather than allow it to be damaged by demonstrators?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
7 Answers
I think you’re putting more stock in the value of the embassy than actually exists. It’s a symbol, a PR front, a listening post, the embodiment of diplomatic presence but that’s about it. One nations embassy is never the solitary link or means of communication available unless it is desired to be so.
The only country that’s going to go to war, nuclear or otherwise, over the violation/destruction of its embassy is the one that sees the act as an unequivocal prelude to unavoidable conflict – in which case it’s likely the final straw in a deep history of perceived provocations – or was looking for an excuse to attack in the first place.
More to the point, diplomats are afforded immunity, embassies however remain the territory of their host country. While a diplomatic mission’s privilege and property should be protected and proper (agreed to) channels should be adhered to, the state must act in the best interest of its citizens above all else. Therefore the sniper should be neutralized and only non-lethal force should be used to protect property.
National self interest always trumps the intent of foreign diplomats. The embassy exists at the pleasure of the host government, not the foriegn diplomatic representatives or their property claims in the host nation.
I don’t think the sanctity should be more important than lives. And yet, diplomats who kill are often allowed to go home without being prosecuted, I believe. They can certainly not be prosecuted for lesser offenses.
But if the embassy is an active and ongoing threat, I don’t think it should be protected. No one would think we were wrong to protect ourselves.
I have to agree with @wonderingwhy. I think the purpose of an embassy is less a matter of inter-nation communication (hey that rhymes!) and more a matter of citizen support. If I am a foreigner in another nation, it is nice to know that I have a bit of my home government to which I can take my issues and problems.
@Poser Although YOU may like that, it’s not why that other sovereign nation compromised it’s security by allowing another country to host a booth. It is for the benefit of that country that embassies are allowed to exists. Therefore common sense tells us that in order for embassies to continue to exist, they must follow the rules that assure the country on whose soil they rest that they will be a benefit.
The embassy is all about international cooperation. Then the diplomats spend their spare time trying to help out their fellow nationals. To the extent that facilitates business and tourist dollars, the host country supports that activity, too.
No country has to allow foreign embassies.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
