Diplomatic considerations

0

THE on-going case of the Indian consul Devyani Khobragade being arrested and strip-searched in New York for underpaying her domestic helper and committing visa fraud by lying about it (she had committed to paying at least the local minimum wage) was much more than about the simple application of the rule of law. It became an international diplomatic incident, with many of us in Asia – including even Pakistan – sympathising with India, though it has to be noted that not all Indians supported their government’s position.

Still, the narrative of the US being a superpower bully (and the odd reference to one-sided extraterritoriality in the past) prevailed, triggering an emotional reaction that saw street protests in India and the escalation of a diplomatic row that resulted in tit-for-tat measures: the deprivation of the Indian Ambassador’s parking spot in Washington DC with the removal of security barriers outside the US Embassy in New Delhi, and so on. Anyone who has been subjected to the ‘random’ extra screenings at a US airport would have cheered on with gleeful Schadenfreude the termination of VIP privileges of US diplomats at Indian airports.

In such circumstances, some key aspects of the case – such as the level of immunity actually held by a deputy consul general (as opposed to a full ambassador under the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations 1961), or the idea that everybody lies about paying domestic helpers the minimum wage (with commentary from the diplomatic community citing the policy’s unfairness in not taking into account the provision of food and lodging), or the claim that strip-searching is a normal procedure in the US – have been relegated to the background.

Recently a couple of cases involving Malaysians and the authorities of two other countries have also coloured bilateral ties, albeit on a much smaller scale, reflecting the fact that Malaysia, Sweden and Japan are not, or are not aspiring to be, or are no longer, superpowers; nor do the Malaysians concerned have diplomatic immunity.

It has been more than a month since a Malaysian family living in Sweden have been separated because the parents allegedly smacked their 12-year-old son for not performing his prayers. While it seems that most Malaysians (and certainly the Women, Family and Community Ministry) fully accept that Swedish laws should be respected (and the latest reports indicate that the parents are well looked after while in detention), when it comes to the four children, we are rightly upset. Any sudden change of living environment is especially tough on children, and more could have been done to ensure a home that was more accommodating of their cultural and religious background.

Perhaps the only silver lining from the case is that debate about corporal punishment has been reignited: I’ve read many comments from children of conservative disciplinarians, who are now parents themselves, arguing against spanking and caning. But everyone seems united in condemning the forced separation of the family. There is an online campaign to put pressure on Sweden to reunite the family, employing the hashtag #SwedenLetThemGo, and I overheard some people discussing a boycott of Ikea.

The recent refusal by Japanese immigration authorities to allow Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim through Narita, on the other hand, has resulted in comparatively louder calls for a boycott of Japanese products and even a flag-burning outside the Japanese Embassy (when was the last time that happened? The 1940s?). The default reaction of some of the former Deputy Prime Minister’s supporters is to blame our own government, but I find it unlikely that Putrajaya would ask Japan to deny him entry. Both governments would have more to lose than gain by colluding in this way. The explanation from the Japanese Embassy is that a recent relaxation of visa rules does not apply to former convicts, and that the proper procedure was not followed. I am sure more explanations and counter-explanations will continue to emerge.

I am not sure if we are buying less flat-pack furniture or blue cats from the future (the 100 Doraemon Malaysia exhibition runs until March 23) as a result of these incidents, but the idea of boycotting products from either Sweden or Japan is misjudged. Even a popular government often makes policy decisions that citizens disagree with – as much as in diplomacy and foreign policy than with domestic policy – and a distinction should be made between the actions of a country’s government and the commercial activities of its citizens (imagine if demand for our produce fell just because of our government’s misstep in the treatment of another country’s citizens).

The resilience of bilateral ties rests on the bedrock of people-to-people relationships: despite all the street protests, even India and the US will remain strong allies.

Tunku Abidin Muhriz is president of Ideas.