Outside of the US does, "Partisanship stop at the water's edge?"

Factual Questions
1

In the US there is a political standard, often observed in the breech, that “Partisanship stops at the water’s edge?” The phrase was coined by Senator Arthur Vandenberg in the late 1940s, when the cold war was just starting. Here’s one description:

So some say that making a partisan speech to a foreign parliament or audience crosses that line. Others might argue that even commenting on domestic politics abroad is wrong-headed, since such an attack will prompt a response and the back and forth creates a distraction within the foreign media. Still others (Kevin Drum) think the whole construct is obsolete given today’s truly global media.

The preceding paragraph is appropriate for GD: here I just wanted to acknowledge that the phrase in question is somewhat ambiguous. Notwithstanding, do countries outside of the US have such a standard? What sort of behavior is permissible, what sort is considered poor taste? Where do they draw the line?

2

Regarding German politicians, it’s not really an issue IMO:

  • Addresses to a foreign forum in an official capacity (e.g. German Chancellor or President addressing a foreign parliament): aren’t going to be overly partisan anyway because addressees will think less of speaker to air petty domestic squabbles. E.g. Mrs. Merkel won’t excoriate the Left Party when addressing a foreign parliament, mainly not because Germans will consider it uncool but because the foreign audience will consider it uncool.

  • Comments and contributions to foreign media: won’t make any difference IMO. Foreign media are perfectly capable of following German media and report on what they consider relevant. For example, if a German politician gets to write a guest opinion piece in the NY Times (which presumably will address matters of interest to an US audience), this will (if significant in view of his/her previous statements) be reported in Germany. For the same effect he or she could write an opinion piece in a German paper whch would, if of interest to an US audience, be reported in the US media. Same difference. (In the politician’s shoes I’d choose the first alternative if available, because I’d have control over the English text and wouldn’t get skewered by wilful mistranslations into English as is sometimes the case).

  • Only one case would be received very poorly indeed: asking foreign politicians to intervene in domestic party politics (e.g. being caught at asking the US government not to receive an opposition figure).