Display:
Well, um, if the foreigners thing doesn't work, maybe they could blame the CIA for making a bad map?  They thought they were protecting the embassies, but it turns out they sent the guards to the wrong place.

Don't mind me, I'm just tired and grumpy.  I am aware of the Vienna Convention protocols, and I would never in a million years defend the torching of an embassy.  I hope you don't think I was doing so.

It really does create a problem for Syria.  I am also quite sure that they could have protected those embassies if they really wanted to.  People do not protest in Syria if they do not believe it is sanctioned by the state.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think how anything said on this thread could be construed as an endorsement of the torching of an embassy. But leaving that aside, I wonder what the consequences of this will be. The Danish government was under no legal obligation, domestic or international, to do anything about the cartoons; but Syria was under an international legal obligation to control rioting around an embassy (Indonesia is similarly in breach of its obligations since the Danish embassy in Jakarta was stormed by protesters the other day) and prevent its being damaged.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is a very good question about the consequences.  The treaty does not appear to spell them out.

I imagine that the severing of diplomatic relations would be a unilateral action that Denmark and Norway could take, but since the treaty is to apply even in the event of severed relations, it must be enforcable by the UN, regardless of the state of relations between the states involved.

Which means, I guess, that sanctions could theoretically be on the table... which would make the Bush administration soooooo happy.  Sigh.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The extent to which the treaty goes in protecting embassies is actually quite eye-popping:
45. If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled:
(a) the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives;


guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a cambodia mob burned the Thai embassy. It didnt take long to get things back on track. Guess it depends on the countries respective interests.
by observer393 on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series