Editor’s Note: Yes, we know that the font’s messed up. Blame wordpress for not allowing a simple copy and paste from a word document. Not Rob.
Last year, Syria and Lebanon finally agreed to establish diplomatic ties. The decision was hailed as a political breakthrough, with significant credit given to French President Nicolas Sarkozy for his efforts to coax Syria. But many expressed doubts as to the ease with which the decision would actually be implemented. Since the two countries had gained their independence from France in the 1940’s, there have been no embassies and no recognition by Syria of Lebanon’s sovereignty. Syrian governments always considered Lebanon as something of a historical mistake, and saw it as part of geographic and historic Greater Syria. For this reason, while the Syrian decree to open diplomatic channels of communication was lauded, it was not without scepticism as to how genuine the move truly was.
The locality of the Syrian embassy will be the trendy neighbourhood of Hamra in Beirut, close to the Lebanese American University and the American University of Beirut. The building which will house the Syrian embassy in Beirut raised the Syrian flag on 26 December, 2008. But there is still no Syrian ambassador working there. There has been a great deal of speculation as to who Syria will appoint in the past few months, and two names that were floated were those of Makram Obeid, current Syrian ambassador to Spain, and Collette Khoury, Bashar el Assad’s literary advisor and a francophone poet and novelist. In early January 2009, news stories started circulating quoting diplomatic sources as saying that the choice had fallen on Collette Khoury, and that the official announcement would be made by Bashar to French president Nicolas Sarkozy during a state visit by the latter. Since those stories however, there has been no announcement confirming Collette Khoury’s appointment, or anyone else’s appointment for that matter. The office where the Syrian embassy will be located is presently being run by three Syrian diplomats and is not yet fully operational. This perceived dilly-dallying on the appointment of an ambassador by Syria hardly serves to counterract the impression that it is still not truly committed to dealing with Lebanon through diplomatic channels and to recognizing its smaller neighbour as a fully independent and sovereign state.
As to Lebanon’s choice for its ambassador to Syria, that fell on Michel Khoury. Yesterday, Monday, 17 March 2009, a Lebanese delegation attended the official inauguration of its first ever embassy in Damascus. Ambassador Khoury will only take office in April and until then, Rami Murtada will head the embassy as chargé d’affaires.
One would think that the opening of an embassy by a direct neighbour, and in a context as meaningful as this one, would merit some kind of Syrian attention. After all, surely the Syrian government was aware that this would make international headlines, just as the initial announcement did in 2008? Interestingly, not so. There was a conspicuous absence of an official delegation by the host nation. The reason? “Ooops, we forgot… or something….” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem stated at a joint news conference with Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League, that the absence was not intentional. It’s just that, well, the Syrian government thought the inauguration was taking place on Sunday, not Monday. This begs the question: did the Syrian delegation show up on Sunday all suited up, only to realize they were a day early?
Diplomacy is often jokingly referred to as the world’s second-oldest profession. The principles, formalities and rules governing it are so detailed and have become so entrenched in state practice that they were written down in an international treaty known as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 4 (1) of the Vienna Convention obliges state to send their ambassadors’ accreditations to the host country’s government, and to obtain the host country’s approval:
1. The sending State must make certain that the agrément of the receiving State has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State.
Not only that, but the Vienna Convention also requires that the sending state notify the host country of the appointment of members of a diplomatic mission, of their arrival and their departure, of the arrival and departure of the diplomats’ family members, and even of the arrival and departure of their private servants:
1. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State, or such other ministry as may be agreed, shall be notified of:
(a) The appointment of members of the mission, their arrival and their final departure or the termination of their functions with the mission;
(b) The arrival and final departure of a person belonging to the family of a member of the mission and, where appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or ceases to be a member of the family of a member of the mission;
(c) The arrival and final departure of private servants in the employ of persons referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph and, where appropriate, the fact that they are leaving the employ of such persons;
(d) The engagement and discharge of persons resident in the receiving State as members of the mission or private servants entitled to privileges and immunities.
If the host country has to be informed of private servants’ arrivals and departures, should it not, a fortiori, also be informed of when an embassy opens? Granted, the Convention doesn’t specify how far in advance the host country has to be notified. But given the geographic proximity of the two countries, the political importance of the event, the regional and international press coverage, not to mention all the legal formalities a sending country has to follow, it is a little difficult to believe a Syrian government official when they pretend not to know when an embassy on their own territory was scheduled to be inaugurated.
The Daily Star quotes Mouallem as saying that he had not been informed of the opening, but had “heard the news in media”. Am I the only person who finds it a bit odd that a Foreign Minister heard of an embassy opening in his own country, through the news? To be honest, I’m not so fussed about a Syrian delegation not attending the opening. It’s the pretension, founded or not, that the Syrian government didn’t know when the opening was set to take place. Surely, there must have been some kind of communication as to this politically important event between Beirut and Damascus? Wouldn’t the Syrian Foreign Ministry have received an invitation to attend? Or at least some kind of notice along the lines of: “By the way, we’re thinking of opening an embassy on Monday…” ? Should we conclude that this was just another snub by older brother Syria towards its little neighbour? Or are there simply excusable administrative errors in diarizing events in the Foreign Ministry’s calendar?