The Real Shame in a Diplomat’s Illegal Arrest

Published in Lian He Zhao Bao
(Singapore) on 1 May 2010
by Xia He Nian (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Huifang Yu. Edited by Catherine Harrington.
Who is embarrassed in the Houston diplomatic issue?

If the case of a diplomat being handcuffed had not happened in a Western country, the internet opinion would have probably been different. Yet this happened in the U.S. and, if one is not careful, public opinion could be distorted—especially in this case, as the car being driven had no license plate, leading to confusion over the identities of diplomats and civilians.

There are also reports that "[the Houston police] chased Yu into the building [Chinese Consulate] and placed him in handcuffs". There are also fraudulent accounts that omit the fact that the Chinese consulate was entered to arrest the diplomat, but instead emphasize that the U.S. police was fulfilling its duties. Purely because they are U.S. police, these law enforcement officers, who had no consideration for international law, are actually considered to be models of strict law enforcement. I am speechless!

Driving a car with no license plate could be due to several reasons. First, the license plate could have been stolen. In Houston it is common for license plates to be stolen and it is possible that the diplomat drove the car without realizing the license plate was gone. Yet, regardless of whether he knew there was no license plate, the police were correct to pursue the diplomat since the identity of the diplomat was unknown. However, local security issues cannot be used as an excuse to escape responsibility.

Second, the license plate could have been purposely removed. If this is the case, everyone would know why. If the diplomat was driving around without a license plate because he knew he could not be arrested, that would explain why he did not stop his car for the police. Theoretically, if a diplomat declares his identity, even the police are not allowed to search the car. However if the identification were taken during the search, I'm afraid one would have to suffer in silence. The Chinese deputy consul in Houston would definitely have a greater understanding of this situation than most.

It is commonly known that official cars are used to having their own way in China and, in this case, the bad behavior continued overseas. The ability of a deputy consul to adapt to life in the superpower is definitely strong. In fact, it is his return to China that presents the real challenge in adapting. Ordinary people are well aware that once a diplomat identifies himself, he is able to leave, so how could the diplomat himself not know this? Yet he did not identify himself. So, what does that imply? Does that mean you know foreign rules better than him?

The Americans can accuse him of not stopping his car for examination, yet we cannot, at least when the truth is still unclear. Generally such incidents will not have a truth, unless U.S.-China relations are completely coming to an end—though all know this is not the case. Therefore we cannot fault our diplomat at all, nor can we verbally abuse him. What I really want to say is not that it is shameful that the Houston police have no consideration for international law, but that Houston's response to this diplomatic incident has shamed some Chinese.

It is fair to say that regardless of the reason for no license plate, it is legitimate for police to pursue cars on the road, even if the license plate was rigged by secret agents. This could have led to a situation where the license plate was present when the car was boarded and then fell off when the car was started.

Others can reprimand us for this but we ourselves cannot do so. The police barging into the Chinese consulate, using violence and arresting people demonstrated that the U.S. has become completely unreasonable. According to the relevant conventions:

1) U.S. police are not allowed in the consulate, unless in emergency situations where they are given permission to protect the consulate and the safety of the diplomats. Yet apparently this was not the case. Universal values argue that this would in fact be acceptable when pursuing a terrorist. The problem is, even the U.S. itself wouldn’t dare to use this excuse as the acts of violence that happened at the consulate occurred after the diplomat revealed his identity.

2) The 29th Article of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving state shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

3) The 31st Article of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. In other words, even if there is sufficient evidence showing that the diplomat had violated the law in the receiving state, the American police have no right to enter the consulate to arrest. There is no dispute over this international rule.

4) Consulates are almost like the territory of a specific state, and it should not be easily accessible to outsiders. The U.S. side argues that it did not know that the building is a consulate. The possibility of such an excuse being truthful is almost zero. It is impossible that the local police did not know that they had entered the Chinese consulate. With the several patrol cars that followed, no police realized that it is a Chinese consulate? Can you believe that?

Still there are some people who believe this, and these Chinese mislead the public and convince other Chinese of their view. This is totally odd. However, it is not as bizarre as the fact that even as Americans confess that the Iraq war was a mistake, some in China still argue over this. Regardless, the U.S. had to apologize for its mistakes; the law will not let you shirk responsibility just because you say you are "unaware."


休斯顿外交事件羞死谁? 
如果外交官被拷事件不是发生在西方国家,网络舆论大概是另一种景象,但这是发生在普世国,一个不小心舆论就被扭转到另一条轨道了,有专攻开无牌车的,有混淆外交官和平民身份区别的,还有在报道时将“闯入领事馆抓人”模糊为“进入车库抓人”的,更有甚者,有人干脆不提进入领事馆抓人这档子事,专谈美国警察如何恪尽职守。目无国际法的执法人员在他们眼里竟然是严格执法的典范,只因他们是普世国的警察,无语!   驾驶无牌车分几种情况:1、车牌被盗。据说在休斯顿,车牌被盗之事常有,他在不知道的情况下就稀里糊涂驾着无牌车上路了。不管他知不知道车牌没了,警察在不知车主外交身份的情况下追捕是正当的,至于当地治安问题,那是另一回事,不能作为脱责的理由;2、故意卸下车牌。如果是这样,大家都知道是什么意思,哪个国家的使领馆都行使这类职能,这就能够解释为何没有停车接受检查。理论上,如果外交官停车后亮明身份,警察也不允许到车上搜查,但如果搜走了文件,恐怕只能打断牙往肚里吞,对这类事情的规矩,中国驻休斯顿副领事肯定比尔等清楚得多。   一种普遍的说法是,官车在国内横行惯了,这回丢人丢到国外了。官至驻超级大国的副大使,适应国外环境的能力肯定是很强的,反倒是回到国内可能会一时难以适应。普通人都清楚亮出外交官身份就可以走人,他会不知道?但他没有那样做,这说明什么?总不会说明你比他更懂外交规矩吧?美国人可以指责他拒不停车检查,我们自己不能,至少在真相未明的现在不能。一般地说,这类事情也不会有什么真相,除非中美关系就此彻底拜拜,但谁都知道不可能。所以我们根本就不该就此事指责自己的外交官,更不能谩骂。我更想说的还不是休斯顿警察目无国际法羞死人,而是对休斯顿外交事件的反应让一些中国人蒙羞。   公平地说,不管没有车牌的原因是什么,警察在路上的追捕行为还是站得住脚的,哪怕车牌是被秘密警察做了手脚以至于上车前有车牌开车途中震掉了。不过,别人能骂我们自己不能骂,警察闯入领事馆内施暴和抓人则表明美方彻彻底底输理了。根据相关公约:   1、未经许可,美国警察不得进入馆内,除非是紧急情况下为了保护使领馆及外交人员的安全,但这次的情况显然不是。普世派辩护说,可以假设为是追捕恐怖分子,问题是,美国自己都不敢这么说。记住,施暴行为发生在领事馆内,发生在亮明外交官身份之后。   2、《维也纳外交关系公约》第二十九条规定:外交代表人身不得侵犯。外交代表不受任何方式之逮捕或拘禁。接受国对外交代表应特示尊重,并应采取一切适当步骤以防止其人身、自由或尊严受有任何侵犯。   3、《维也纳外交关系公约》第三十一条第一款规定:外交代表对接受国之刑事管辖享有豁免。换句话说,就是有十足的证据表明外交官触犯了驻在国刑律,美国警察也无权进入馆内抓人,这是一项没有争议的国际规则。   4、使领馆相当于一国领土,不是外人能随便进入的。美方辩解说不知道那是领事馆。这种理由成立的可能性为零,事情发生的地点不是南联盟的贝尔格莱德,而是美国境内的休斯顿。警察都是分片管理的,当地警察不可能不知道进入了中国领事馆。好几部车后面追,竟然没有一个警察知道那是中国领事馆,你能信吗?   偏偏就有人信,作为中国人还不惜误导舆论让国人也相信,奇了怪了。联系到美国人自己都承认伊拉克战争错了而中国还有人为之辩护,也不奇怪。美国必须为错误行为道歉,法律不会因为你说“不知道”而抹去责任。   夏河年
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Topics

India: Peace Nobel for Trump: It’s Too Long a Stretch

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Austria: It’s High Time Europe Lost Patience with Elon Musk

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Ethiopia: ‘Trump Guitars’ Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: 3 Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – But When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Related Articles

Singapore: Trump’s America Brings More Chaos, but Not Necessarily More Danger

Singapore: No Ukraine Cease-fire – Putin Has Called Trump’s Bluff

Singapore: Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy Meltdown – for Friends and Foes

Singapore: In Trump and Musk’s America, Echoes of China’s Past Emerge

Previous article
Next article