DIPLOMATIC AGENTS

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS

Government representatives who are sent by one country to live and work in another, to serve as intermediaries between the two countries.

The concept of diplomatic agents residing in another country dates to the fifteenth century, but the role of diplomats has evolved with the passage of time. Originally, agents were asked to help to work out specific negotiations between countries. Nowadays, their duties include cultivating a relationship between their native country and the host country; serving as intermediaries by relaying each country’s positions to the other; and trying to ensure the best possible treatment for their home countries.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227, 500 U.N.T.S. 95) contains the most widely accepted description of the INTERNATIONAL LAW on diplomacy. The convention splits the functions of diplomatic agents into six categories: representing the sending state; protecting the sending
state’s nationals within the receiving state; nego-
tiating with the receiving state; notifying the
sending state of conditions and developments
within the receiving state; promoting friendly
relations between the two states; and developing
economic, cultural, and scientific relations
between the two states.

Historically, the nomination of U.S. ambas-
sadors to foreign countries is based on the rec-
ommendation of the president and is subject to
approval by the Senate. It has also been a U.S.
tradition that nominations are often given to
acquaintances of the president or to those who
have contributed heavily to political campaigns.
The United States is the only major country that
assigns ambassadorships as political rewards.
Despite legislation passed by Congress in
1980 stating that “contributions to political
campaigns should not be a factor in the
appointment” of an ambassador (22 U.S.C.A. §
3944), this practice of political spoils continues.
Former president GEORGE H. W. BUSH nomi-
nated six Republicans as U.S. ambassadors in
1989. Each was a member of Bush’s Team 100,
contributors who had given more than $100,000
to the GOP.

The practice did not change when Democrat
BILL CLINTON first won the presidency in 1992.
According to an Associated Press review, by the
end of Clinton’s first year in office, he had nom-
inated five $100,000-plus donors as foreign
ambassadors. However, Clinton was able to
deflect some of the criticism following these
appointments by shifting the focus to the quali-
fications of his appointees. He stressed that his
recommendations extended beyond campaign
participation and that they required some real
expertise that suited the demands of the
appointments. For example, the Japanese
regarded Clinton’s pick for ambassador to Japan,
Walter F. Mondale, as a well-qualified diplomat
who would help to steady U.S.-Japanese part-
nership. Investment banker Nicholas A. Rey was
chosen as ambassador to Warsaw on the basis
that he spoke fluent Polish and that he had pre-
viously led an effort to stimulate private invest-
ments in Poland.

President GEORGE W. BUSH similarly
rewarded contributors with ambassador posi-
tions, but he came under heavier criticism due
to the number of contributors who had received
these appointments. Bush set a fundraising
record during the 2000 presidential election,
receiving more than $100 million from individ-
ual donors. He later appointed 43 “elite”
fundraisers—those who donated at least
$100,000 to the campaign.

Another topic involving diplomatic agents
that has come under scrutiny in the 1990s
involves a shift toward commercialism. Promot-
ing exports and assisting U.S. businesses with
their foreign dealings has become a top priority
for the U.S. embassies. Since Deputy SECRETARY
OF STATE Lawrence Eagleburger took office in
1989, all new foreign service officers and ambas-
sadors have studied commerce as part of their
basic training. Eagleburger has emphasized a
necessity for diplomats to understand the needs
of U.S. businesses and ways to help them to
make the right connections abroad. This transi-
tion toward trade diplomacy is not new: Diplo-
mats have always tried, in one way or another, to
increase U.S. exports. The trend now is for
diplomats to help specific companies to obtain
specific contracts overseas and to help to find
buyers for U.S. exports.

U.S. ambassadors direct, supervise, and coordinate a body of representatives in the country to which they have been assigned. This body of representatives from the sending government is referred to as a diplomatic mission. Under the Vienna Convention, both the property and the employees of a diplomatic mission
are considered inviolable. However, the convention
leaves to the receiving state the decision of
how to protect a resident diplomatic agent from
assault.
In the United States, specific legislation outlines
the penalties that will be imposed if someone
attacks a diplomatic officer residing in the
United States. The penalties apply to anyone
who “assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or
offers violence to a foreign official, official guest,
or internationally protected person, his official
premises, private accommodation, or means of
transport or attempts to commit any of the foregoing”
(Act of Oct. 24, 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-539,
18 U.S.C.A. § 112(a)). This statute criminalizes
acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten
or harass a foreign official” (18 U.S.C.A. § 112).
This section applies to any conduct outside the
District of Columbia, which has somewhat different
laws that penalize certain conduct
directed at foreign embassies (see Boos v. Barry,
485 U.S. 312, 108 S. Ct. 1157, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333
(1988) [striking down part of the D.C. law as
violating freedom of speech]).
The United States is among a number of signatories
to two separate conventions that are
intended to protect visiting dignitaries. These
include the Organization of American States
Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of
Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against
Persons and Related EXTORTION That Are of
International Significance, and the UNITED
NATIONS Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic
Agents. Both conventions require host countries
to take measures to prevent terrorist acts, and to
make efforts to arrest and to punish the offenders
should an attack occur.
The Vienna Convention grants special PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES to diplomats, on the
grounds that these are necessary to allow performance
of official duties without outside
interference or constraint. Some examples of
privileges are exemption from customs on goods
that diplomats import for their own or their
family’s use, from property taxes on mission
property, from income taxes for pay received for
their diplomatic duties, and from military obligations.
Diplomatic agents and their families are
also immune from civil or criminal prosecution.
If a diplomat is accused of committing a crime,
the STATE DEPARTMENT takes specific steps,
including notifying the diplomat’s home country
and asking to have the diplomat’s IMMUNITY
waived so that the case can advance to the U.S.
judicial system. Diplomatic agents are also
exempt from serving as witnesses in civil or
criminal proceedings, unless their country
waives their immunity if the agents feel their testimony
is essential to the case. For example, in
1881, Venezuela asked its minister to the United
States to testify in the trial of Charles J. Guiteau
for the assassination of U.S. president JAMES GARFIELD.

CROSS-REFERENCES
Ambassadors and Consuls; Diplomatic Immunity.