US ambassador must be held accountable for his comments on Manipur

 Garcetti should have known better than to speak on India's internal affairs. He must be summoned to the MEA and India’s unhappiness at his Manipur remarks be should be made known to himprofessional diplomat. But he does have vast experience in public life and has been a teacher of international relations. That should have taught him that it is inappropriate for an ambassador to comment on any aspect of the internal affairs of the country of his posting. This is more so when the ambassador acknowledges that the subject of his comment comes within the sovereign jurisdiction of the country to which he is assigned: Garcetti did so, on July 6, in Kolkata, when he was asked to react to the developments in Manipur.

A sound envoy would have simply dismissed the question by observing that as an ambassador of a foreign country, he has no comment to make on a matter relating to an internal Indian development or situation. He chose not to do so and said he was praying for peace there. He denied that the US had “strategic concerns” in Manipur but said it did have “human concerns”. He went on to add, “You don’t have to be an Indian to care about children or individuals dying in the sort of violence we see…”. Ambassadors do not have the luxury of making their emotions publicly known on issues that are domestically sensitive in the country to which they are assigned.

Garcetti proceeded to say that there had been progress in the northeast and the east and for that to “continue”, peace was required. There can be quarrels with the proposition Garcetti advanced but it is not an ambassador’s place to do so in relation to an internal matter of India. He has to know the limits within which diplomatic practice and norms require him to operate even if his intentions may be good.

The observation is this: The US has held the position that in case of differences between India and Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir, its good offices are available if both sides wish to employ them. India has been against third-party involvement in J&K and has always rejected offers from the US and all other states. This is an issue between India and Pakistan because of the latter’s illegal and forcible control of the territories of the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. For India, the matter of J&K is to be bilaterally settled with Pakistan, though some states feel tempted to become facilitators.