With all the latest talk on airport security, I’m curious to know if diplomatic pouches go through x-ray machines at airports. I know that usually diplomatic pouches are sacrosanct and cannot be examined by anyone except authorized representatives of the issuer’s couuntry, but is there an exception for airports? If so, how can one protect against espionage in the name or security? And, in a worse thought, how can one prevent terrorists from forging a diplomatic passport, said to be an easy task, and carrying a weapon in the pouch?
In the military, I have carried items that were not for public exhibition. When this was the case, I carried credentials and a statement that the item could only be inspected in certain ways, i.e. x-ray or shaking but no opening of the box or case.
Not sure what level of protection is given to actual diplomatic pouches, though.
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the diplomatic pouch is inviolable. That means that it cannot be opened or examined in any way without the courier’s consent. Since the person of the diplomat is tyically also inviolable, it seems like it’d be pretty tough to detain or examine the pouch.
Airport security may not be able to search or inspect the pouch, but I would then assume this would be grounds for denying the currior entry onto the flight. In other words, you don’t have to let us see what you’re carrying, but we don’t have to let you on the aircraft, either. Or does that stance not hold water with diplomats and their staff?
Then I guess our diplomatic relations with Afghanistan are de facto nonexistant? After all, if we can’t search the bags or the body, the diplomat could have an agenda we don’t know of until it’s too late.
Since we don’t recognize the Taliban government, we wouldn’t give their diplomatic staff immunity. I wonder how this all works if the UN invites someone to attend in NYC? I imagine they would be unable to bring in a diplomatic pouch.
From what I understand, the “pouch” can be of arbitrary size.
In his book Inside the Aquarium Victor Suvorov describes sealing a shipping canister on the back of a truck as a diplomatic pouch when he was stationed in Vienna with the GRU. IIRC, he described it as being large enough that he and his cronies thought the Austrian customs officials would assume they’d somehow stolen a NATO jet engine or some such.
Well, that about tops the story I was going to tell. There’s an embassy a few doors down from me, and in their back lot there was for the longest time a HUGE MOTHER OF JEEBUS crate, that you could have put a pre-fab house in, that had DIPLOMATIC CONVEYANCE or some such words on it in English, French, and Spanish.
Can anyone explain to me why a country would allow this? I understand the nature of diplomatic immunity (you leave ours alone, we leave yours alone), but expecting a host country to let a foreigner haul out a huge case of who knows what, after that foreigner has (presumably) had access to some fairly vital buildings seems like insanity. Maybe I’m missing something here, but allowing someone you cannot hang to bring undisclosed items to a foreign country after having access to places like your capital and an important military base (Camp David) sounds like a carte blanche invitation to rampant espionage. And even if we did catch someone at it, diplomatic immunity holds, doesn’t it?
Yes, it does. The only thing which can be done is to expell the diplomat. A country always gives its agreement to the presence of each member of the diplomatic corps and can deny entrance or withdraw its agreement at any time and without explanation (though usually explanations are given). But whatever they can do while they benefit from this agreement, being spies or even serial killers, they’re totally protected. Except in the rare cases when their country of origin accept not to extent the diplomatic protection to them (it could be the case for the serial killer, for instance, though even in this situation, it’s not sure at all…and perhaps the said individual could nevertheless legally argue that the protection still applies, despite his country’s decision, I don’t really know)
And there is no case I’m aware of allowing to examinate in any way the diplomatic pouch, which indeed can be of any size, even a truckload, as in the example given above.
And the reason is easier to understand. If such checks could take place, it would be easy to disclose secret documents or materials (say, the truckload is the brand new coding machines of the embassy). And anyway, who would decide what can be inspected and what can’t? And on what basis?
If you’re seriously affraid that a diplomat of the country X could ship in a nuclear bomb or whatever, I suppose the relations between the countries would be at such a low point that putting an end to the diplomatic relations would be in order. And finally, I’m not sure a country would use the diplomatic pouch with such an intent. If only because it’s perhaps the better way to call the attention of the local intelligence services.
oh! And of course it is a carte blanche invitation to rampant espionnage. The embassies have always been nests of spies. How many american “diplomats” in Moscow and russian “diplomats” in Washington have been declared “persona non grata” during the cold war (and even recently), for instance? And anyway, there’s a whole spectrum from gathering legitimate but sensible information to organizing an efficient network of spies infiltrated in local governmental agencies.
Spouses of US citizens in China send in Immigration and Naturalization Service documents to the INS office in Beijing. After processing, those documents are sent to various embassies in China and also back to the US for further processing via diplomatic pouch.
There is a ton of paperwork sent by diplomatic pouch. That might explain some of the bulk required.
My Father in Law in currently Ambassador in Riyadh (and we’re going there on Saturday).
Diplomatic pouches are not examined in any way shape in form*, and it can’t be touched either. In fact, holders of diplomatic passports do not have their hand carries examined either, but only if they present their documents and identify themselves to customs officials and only if they are actually carrying the bags they wish to protect. Trust me, you do not want to know what laws are being flaunted by diplomats carrying things in luggage. It’s an ongoing joke in our office about the stuff my Mother in Law brings when she comes to stay - 22lbs of beef from Kenya (frozen in a suitcase), whole aloe plant, 3 feet long from Saudi Arabia (in a hand carry), approx 200 shelled cloves of garlic in 5 plastic bags to make kimchi etc etc.
Oh, and re the spying thing? All countries do it, but that is mostly the job of the military attache to the embassy. It’s really just the flagrant abuse of the unwritten rules that get people expelled, and those rules are to keep things discreet.
BTW, junior diplomats have competitions to see how many parking tickets they can get in a year then laugh about it at parties because they are above the law**. My Father in Law (H.E.) had 64 in a year when he was a junior in Rome.
diplomatic pouches are different from the personal effects of embassy staff - they carry the offical embassy / government stuff.
** but they do have a duty to act responsibly (I think he must have recycled them or something…)
I’ve never really thought out this before, but can you put people in your diplomatic containers? 'Coz that would be a cool way to smuggle people in and out of countries. Pretty obvious what you’re up to, mind you, but easy.
Going a bit further, what would happen if, say, some country threw a HUGE diplomatic pouch over the whole of Afghanistan? Would the USAF and RAF have to turn around and go home?
I’m at work now and don’t have the time to hunt for cites, but I seem to recall an incident in the '80s where a person was discovered drugged and bound to a chair built in to a trunk. IIRC, the Soviets were shipping him somewhere. My guess would be the trunk was a diplomatic “pouch.”
Do diplomats going to the UN have diplomatic immunity? If a country we didn’t recognize was invited to speak at the UN or to have a representitive, would the US be required to admit them and give them immunity?
I know Castro has been to the UN, and Cuba has representation, what if the Taleban regime was recognized? Granted, the US could probably exercise our veto, but still…
It normally shouldn’t, as the diplomatic courier is also inviolable. Inviolability means you may not touch or detain him in any way. In practice it’s probably a lot looser. For instance, a few years ago here in D.C. a Georgian (I think) diplomat got drunk, got behind the wheel, and killed a girl. The cops arrested him, which was a clear violation of the Vienna Convention. But they still did it. (They soon let him go, but IIRC not until they had reassurances that he wouldn’t leave the area.) His immunity was revoked by his host country and he was tried and convicted. I assume he’s still in stir right now. As this illustrates, these immunities belong to the state, not the individual. If your home government waives your immunity, you have no power to challenge it.
I wonder if a distinction can be drawn between state actors and private actors.
What I mean is, I agree that U.S. Customs Agents can’t look through a diplomatic pouch, but, if Joe Diplomat tries to enter a privately owned building, why can’t building security insist on looking through his bag as a pre-condition to entering the building?
By the way, I was surprised to discover a few weeks ago that the PLO has a mission in New York City (the street is now barracaded.) Apparently, the PLO is recognized by the UN, and the US is required by treaty to accord certain rights to accredited UN envoys.