Opinion US ambassador must be held accountable for his comments on Manipur
Eric Garcetti should have known better than to speak on India's internal affairs. He must be summoned to the MEA and India’s unhappiness at his Manipur remarks be should be made known to him
It is a diplomatic requirement that Eric Garcetti should be summoned to the MEA and India’s unhappiness at his Manipur remarks be made known to him. (PTI) Eric Garcetti, US ambassador to India, is not a professional diplomat. But he does have vast experience in public life and has been a teacher of international relations. That should have taught him that it is inappropriate for an ambassador to comment on any aspect of the internal affairs of the country of his posting. This is more so when the ambassador acknowledges that the subject of his comment comes within the sovereign jurisdiction of the country to which he is assigned: Garcetti did so, on July 6, in Kolkata, when he was asked to react to the developments in Manipur.
A sound envoy would have simply dismissed the question by observing that as an ambassador of a foreign country, he has no comment to make on a matter relating to an internal Indian development or situation. He chose not to do so and said he was praying for peace there. He denied that the US had “strategic concerns” in Manipur but said it did have “human concerns”. He went on to add, “You don’t have to be an Indian to care about children or individuals dying in the sort of violence we see…”. Ambassadors do not have the luxury of making their emotions publicly known on issues that are domestically sensitive in the country to which they are assigned.
Envoys are expected to keep their sentiments and assessments to themselves and convey them to their governments. This is 101 of being a diplomat, leave alone an ambassador. Clearly, Garcetti has much to learn.
Garcetti proceeded to say that there had been progress in the northeast and the east and for that to “continue”, peace was required. There can be quarrels with the proposition Garcetti advanced but it is not an ambassador’s place to do so in relation to an internal matter of India. He has to know the limits within which diplomatic practice and norms require him to operate even if his intentions may be good.
Garcetti’s next comment on the Manipur situation was breathtaking in its audacity. He accepted that “this was an internal matter” but prefaced that with the words “We stand ready, willing, able to assist in any way asked…”. Two questions and one observation come to mind.
In what respect does Garcetti think the US can assist in a matter which he acknowledges is within India’s domestic sphere? Does he think that the Indian government is incapable of handling the Manipur situation and is that what led him to make this gratuitous offer?
The observation is this: The US has held the position that in case of differences between India and Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir, its good offices are available if both sides wish to employ them. India has been against third-party involvement in J&K and has always rejected offers from the US and all other states. This is an issue between India and Pakistan because of the latter’s illegal and forcible control of the territories of the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. For India, the matter of J&K is to be bilaterally settled with Pakistan, though some states feel tempted to become facilitators.
Obviously, Manipur is different from J&K. Hence, Garcetti’s remarks were all the more inappropriate and unacceptable. Indeed, in this writer’s over three-and-a-half decades as a professional diplomat, he cannot recollect a single instance when the envoy of a friendly country ever made the remarks of the kind Garcetti has on Manipur. Sometimes, diplomats of unfriendly countries such as Pakistan may comment on issues that fall within India’s internal affairs — such as the social situation in the country — but they are invariably taken to task and that is then made publicly known.
It is strange that over the past four days, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has made no real comment on Garcetti’s comments. On July 6, at his weekly briefing, the official spokesperson was questioned about the issue. He said that he had not seen his comments but added, “I’m not sure foreign diplomats would comment on internal developments in India.”. As the spokesperson was not aware of Garcetti’s comments, his guarded response was valid at the time.
It is now known to the government what Garcetti said. The issue is if it would be diplomatically wise to publicly ignore his remarks. Prime Minister Narendra Modi received such a warm welcome in the US recently, during which he was given the honour of addressing the joint session of the US Congress for the second time. The visit will, no doubt, greatly contribute to comprehensively strengthening India-US ties which are based on mutual interests. This process can never imply that the conduct of a US ambassador to India when it impacts Indian interests can be overlooked. It is wrong to do so both for bilateral ties but also because it can encourage envoys of other countries to follow Garcetti’s example.
It is therefore a diplomatic requirement that Garcetti should be summoned to the MEA and India’s unhappiness at his Manipur remarks be made known to him. And, it should then be publicly acknowledged that such action has been taken.
The writer is a former diplomat
Share
