“The State Department approved the appointment, granting Shumake entry into the privileged world of international diplomacy. Honorary consuls, though not as prominent as ambassadors and other career diplomats, have for centuries worked from their home countries to represent foreign nations.”
… … … … …
Nice work when you can get it
Diplomatic immunity is one of the oldest and most widespread practices in international relations;[2] most civilizations since antiquity have granted some degree of special status to foreign envoys and messengers.[1] It is designed to facilitate relations between states by allowing their respective representatives to conduct their duties freely and safely, even during periods of political tension and armed conflict. Moreover, such protections are generally understood to be reciprocal and therefore mutually beneficial.[2]
This makes sense for appointed ambassadors, but this sub-genre of “honorary consul” seems like a way of grift and protection. If the country that names/appoints someone as an “honorary consul” doesn’t vet the person, we get these shannigans.
In 1708, the British Parliament formally recognized diplomatic immunity and banned the arrest of foreign envoys. In 1790, the United States passed similar legislation that provided absolute immunity for diplomats and their families and servants, as well as for lower ranking diplomatic mission personnel.
I think it makes diplomacy harder for everyone, especially pre-telephone and telegraph, if an emissary or ambassador to an enemy state can LEGALLY and unilaterally be arrested, detained, (extorted), and prosecuted, personally, for an alleged offense by their home country. I don’t see a lot of people signing up for that.
Pootie would gain nothing in that endeavor. T rumpp has outlived his usefulness to the Poot. His “use by” date has long since expired, and now he’s become toxic. He’s a has been that never was.
As mentioned by @xcopy and @lastroth, diplomatic immunity is a very old concept.
Basically, without diplomatic immunity, no one would ever want to be a diplomat, because you would be immediately hostage to whatever nefarious actions the host country wanted to pull, including being a literal hostage. This is part and parcel of the embassies being granted complete sovereignty over the embassy’s building and grounds, and on diplomatic pouches being inviolate. Two countries could never have any kind of negotiations or even interactions without it, except by phone (which of course, has only existed recently), and even Zoom or phone calls are poor ways of negotiating.
I think diplomatic immunity is therefore critical to international relations.
That said, it can be abused (see Khashoggi/Saudi Arabia, for example), and the examples here. I think one solution is that there are grades of diplomatic immunity. You can have someone who has immunity from, say, taxes and misdemeanors, but not felonies, or who has immunity in one town or field but not others. Ambassadors and high level staff should have complete immunity, though.
But a key part of this is that intelligence agencies have to be paying attention and equipped to monitor and stop all kinds of espionage. Even if you can’t prosecute someone with diplomatic immunity, you can expel them and make their face widely known around the world, so they can’t work anywhere else.
Though I did not vote for Bush the elder. I could generate some modicum of respect as he was willing to go into combat in his plane even though it cost the lives of two of his mates on the plane with him. My father flew the TBF Avenger on 110 missions off his carrier. His crew (two men) survived. Same plane type Bush flew. Taking off and especially landing on a small escort class carrier was a hairy adventure in the best conditions
They say the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, but in Duhbya’s case, his dad was growing on a steep hill and he rolled quite a way down that hill before stopping.