admin
Gibson Nyikadzino Correspondent
The behaviour currently being reflected by the United States at both the global level and in the host countries that it established diplomatic relations with, particularly gives some insights on how losing global power is incensing them.
During its unilateral dominance post-1991, after leading and orchestrating over 200 military coups that toppled pro-people leaders, the US exhibited how cruel its militaristic foreign policy could be or is by embarking on military adventures that killed millions and displaced tens of millions.
On several occasions, these military adventures have been actioned on lies.
Globally, biggest post-millennium lie that led to a devastating war was told by the late US Secretary of State Colin Powell that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The other lie was manufactured by western media corporations led by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was planning to use chemical weapons against his people, hence a NATO intervention was key to implement the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Recently, the US Ambassador to South Africa Reuben Brigety falsely claimed that his host country last year loaded weapons and ammunition onto a Russian vessel as support for the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
He later apologised and admitted that “he crossed the line”.
Crossing red lines is what the US is known for and has become accustomed to.
The country breaches international law, disregards international conventions and protocols and is becoming a dangerous character to the world as it plays its politics based on a Cold War mental framework.
Crossing the line in Zim
US Ambassadors hosted by Zimbabwe have over the years behaved like their colleague, Brigety. They find it difficult to be law-abiding.
Post-land reform, they have on many occasions raised political lies to discredit Zimbabwe’s internal processes, especially ahead of elections.
They have breached rubrics guiding how heads of diplomatic missions in host countries should behave in line with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.
In Zimbabwe, from Christopher Dell, James McGee, Charles Ray, Bruce Wharton, Harry Thomas, Brian Nichols to the interim heads of mission Thomas Hastings and Ms Elanie French, they have expressed arrogance and disdain of diplomatic protocol.
Their undiplomatic interventions have bordered on internal meddling in Zimbabwe’s domestic affairs by conducting what may be seen as provocative political activism on behalf of the opposition political parties they fund and sponsor.
In this breach, American diplomats have and are abusing provisions in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention granting them immunity from the receiving state’s criminal jurisdiction.
More so, sanctuary to infuriate is also in Article 29 which states that a diplomat shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
The receiving State is compelled to treat a diplomat with due respect and take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity.
It is the immunity they enjoy and abuse that gives them the courage to interfere in Zimbabwe’s affairs through social media platforms in which in some instances the plot is to incite, instigate and mobilise their functionaries and reactionaries to be militant.
Because there are no amendments to the 1961 Vienna Convention regarding how diplomacy is conducted relating to the incorporation of social media use, the use of such unofficial platforms to communicate issues of diplomatic importance without engaging the host is an expression of a loss of patience and resembles an inclination towards wanting to do things outside the context of the law.
Persona non grata
Where one hides under the pretext of diplomatic immunity to conduct undiplomatic acts, the Vienna Convention also allows the offended country to declare the offending and interfering diplomat as persona non grata.
In the instance of Zimbabwe, Article 9 empowers Zimbabwe to declare any diplomat as persona non grata if they are found to be conducting themselves outside the convention’s guiding regulations without explaining to the sending State.
Last year, Mali declared French Ambassador Joel Meyer persona non grata and wished him to leave the territory within 72 hours for reasons related to the “outrageous statements that were made against the transitional authorities”.
In France recently, about 80 European lawmakers urged Catherine Colonna, the French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs, to take decisive steps against Chinese Ambassador to France, Lu Shaye, whom they deemed violated international law and wanted him to be declared persona non grata.
It is lawful to declare someone persona non grata.
Zimbabwe is patient
Zimbabwe’s foreign policy engagements are not one based on aggression and militancy, but one based of mutual cooperation and the nourishing relations to promote good relations.
In global affairs, powerful states are deemed to be governed not by morals, but by power and weak states are expected to be subservient to the demands and wishes of the former.
The time when that worked appears to be no longer within the modern framework.
In a world where all nation states enjoy their sovereignty, there is need for equal treatment and what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country is wrong in Zimbabwe as it is wrong in Mali, France, South Africa, Turkey and China.
Zimbabweans, remember we are one. This is homeland.
Online Reporter