India-US relations: cooling and warming up (merged thread)

[Firn]

Firn:

One of the characteristics of the American persona is that 'I am just as good a man as you are'. From that you get everybody gets treated the same, especially when dealing with the cops. Not that is an ideal, not always in play, but the ideal.

If somebody from DC was to interfere with a criminal prosecution because 'She's special', that wouldn't go over too big with the Americans. No, that wouldn't go over at all. Not to mention that if the US Attorney could be so easily influenced with a discreet word, you don't really have the rule of law do you?

Actually, for a lot of us flyover people, we don't give a hoot if the guys in Washington are less than happy. Defenestrate 'em.

I actually expected such a response which contains some arguments I do admire to a good degree.

I just want to add three line of thoughts:

1) Looking at some stats and taking into account a couple of papers I have read it is quite obvious that people in the US tend to get treated differently by the security forces and judicial system according to gender, race, age, wealth and location. It is difficult to argue that the US stands out in equal treatment compared to other Western democracies. Overall a strong push towards an equal approach is good as it pulls it against all too common bias into the right direction.

Interestingly sometimes a high status might cause you to get worse treatment because it can earn some agents points in the eyes of the public. You end up with things which are sometimes against the interest of the public but get it's approval and helps someones self-interest.

2) I think it is undeniable that the person in question is 'special'. Not special as a human but as a rappresentative of a foreign power, even more so an important one. There is a long list of reasons manifested in human history and practical politics why diplomats get treated differently, especially if you are not on friendly terms with the other side. It costs a modern state in general extremely little to create a environment which can help to promote it's interests. If you want to screw another powers diplomant you want to do it for a good political reason as a 'bad' treatment of a rappresentative gets easily seen as a bad treatment of the whole nation.

3) In my opinion it is not against the rule of law if the US foreign department interprets an international convention in a broad sense if it is in the interest of the nation and tells its internal organs so.

Ray already mentioned in addition what angried a good deal of well-connected people in India:

This case has got the majority of Indians indignant, not on the legal aspect, but the violation of diplomatic niceties and moralising with pious justification, more so, when US diplomats pay less than a one dollar to their paid help in third world countries as is reported by the US documents itself! I wonder how come the US Govt and the US courts do not find it a violation, when the Embassies and Consulates are taken to be US territories! Surely, the pontificating US State Dept can take suo moto congnisance. And what about the only court in the world that gives Justice (as is claimed) – the US Courts?

I have no doubt that the Italian/European reaction would be quite similar.

[carl]

Ray:

I don't think Mr. Bharara is making any judgments about the US vs the world in the justice dept. I think he is making a specific judgment about how his victim will be treated in India. For better or worse, good info or bad, he wants to get her and her family out of there, so he did. It's his call. We don't know what threat he thought they faced but I would note that this case pits a person of high status whom I'll bet is politically connected against a domestic servant.

I don't know if Americans with Indian origins act like that. I've known a number of them and they seem pretty average to me. High achievers but average in their political views.

Madhu cautions about saying the bulk of Indians are upset about this. Maybe they are. But I figure the bulk of the Indians are closer to Ms. Richard in status than they are to the diplomat so maybe they ain't so upset. The chattering classes are upset is appears though.

The thing you have to remember is from the American point of view, this has nothing to do with the country of India or the dignity thereof. It has to do with an arrogant individual who was throwing her weight around and picking on somebody who was weaker. Not only that she was doing it in violation of American law in the US. This is a 'Who the hell do you think you are?' thing directed at an individual. If people in India are figuring it is directed at India, they are wrong. And if she is given special treatment for her individual actions because she is perceive as a reification of India, then she is gaming the system.

[carl]

I actually expected such a response which contains some arguments I do admire to a good degree.

Yes sir. You put out the bait and I'll go for it.

Tell me exactly what you mean in your point number 1. There are of course inconsistencies in how the law is applied here. There are in all countries, but I am interested in what things precisely you are talking about.

In your point 2 I would contest the use of the word "screw". Ms. Khobragade was arrested on criminal charges. She wasn't picked up for nothing. If she violates the law, a serious violation, and gets picked up, that isn't getting screwed, that's getting arrested. If that is objected to, that is asking for special treatment beyond her status. That rubs us flyover people the wrong way.
[/QUOTE]

[Firn]

To be honest I'm not in the business of laying out baits, as I gain nothing from having you on my hook.

I think in short I wanted to say that in any country, including the US people are getting treated in different ways for a couple of reasons despite the enshrined 'equal' treament. Nobody is much holier then the other in this regard and trying to get more equal is a good thing. There are however some obvious and distinct exceptions to the general rule and among those people are diplomats and their staff to a good degree.

There are certainly no 'better' humans then you or me but their are special due to the special powers bestowed upon them by their country and international conventions. It is just pragmatic for pretty much every country to treat them with care and courtesy, no *** required and in doubt the State department should stick to a fitting interpretation of their status.

All in all I have said my bit and with that I will step out of the discussion.

Merry Christmas and holidays for those who get them.

[Ray]

Yes sir. You put out the bait and I'll go for it.

Tell me exactly what you mean in your point number 1. There are of course inconsistencies in how the law is applied here. There are in all countries, but I am interested in what things precisely you are talking about.

In your point 2 I would contest the use of the word "screw". Ms. Khobragade was arrested on criminal charges. She wasn't picked up for nothing. If she violates the law, a serious violation, and gets picked up, that isn't getting screwed, that's getting arrested. If that is objected to, that is asking for special treatment beyond her status. That rubs us flyover people the wrong way.

Actually, as per the Vienna Convention for Consular Staff Article 47 on Exemption from Work Permits,

1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labor.

2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.


It must also be remembered that the US is a signatory to the Vienna Convention for Consular Staff.

In view of the above, one should not forget:

1. Ms Richard, the maid, was on a consular staff visa and not an ordinary visa.

2. Ms Richards' employment was thus exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State

3. Ms Richard wanted Ms Khobargade to change her passport to an ordinary one so that she could get employment in the US, contrary to the provision of the Vienna Convention for Consular staff which forbids 'do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State'.

Ms Khobargade, reported the issue to the US Govt and NYPD 5 times and no action was taken.

The maid vanished and her husband and children were whisked away from India under T Visa, which is trafficking visa, when they were facing criminal charges in an Indian Court.

Therefore, MS Khobargade violated no law of the US and instead was perfectly correct as per the international Convention ie the Vienna Convention.

The visa to the maid was given by the US Embassy after interviewing her individually and the maid herself signed the necessary documents including declarations.

Therefore, where has she (ms Khobargade) gone wrong?

Further, is a wage dispute a serious crime? or a 'grave crime' in the US?

[Dayuhan]

While I'm not a lawyer, I'd guess that the points of contention might be...

with respect to services rendered for the sending State

Whether or not personal services are considered "services rendered for the sending state" might be open to some interpretation.

exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labor.

That would only cover obligations in regard to work permits, not obligations involving wages, working hours or conditions, etc.

[Ray]

While I'm not a lawyer, I'd guess that the points of contention might be...



Whether or not personal services are considered "services rendered for the sending state" might be open to some interpretation.



That would only cover obligations in regard to work permits, not obligations involving wages, working hours or conditions, etc.

One would surely be enlightened to know what service a maid does 'in services for the sending states'.

Are 'Members of the private staff of consular officers' to work for the State?

The little that I understand of the English Language, it appears clear for comprehension, but then I could be wrong!

[carl]

Ray:

All those legal points will be adjudicated. As I said, Mr. Bharara is reputed to be a very sharp guy so I doubt he will bring a weak case.

As for all the other things, when dealing with American public opinion that doesn't make a big difference. If a foreign diplomat is seen as using the letter of the law to abuse a domestic servant or evade American law, people are going to get very, very upset. Causing the people of the host country to get very upset is not a diplomatic thing to do. I think we look at it along the lines of 'You ain't gonna get away with that here.'

Also I don't know so many details of the case but as far as public opinion goes, a powerful person like Ms. Khobragade isn't going to get much sympathy here if she is whining (and it will be perceived as whining) about her maid.

[jmm99]

this is not a work visa case or a wages & hours case. It is a false statement case.

Let us assume beyond argument that Ms. Khobragade had no obligation re: a work visa and no obligation to pay a given wage. Just as Martha Stewart had no obligation to make any statements to the Federal investigators.

But, Ms. Khobragade did make statements (so the State Department alleges in its complaint - and in writing). Which is why I've always advised my clients not to make statements to the government, state or Federal - unless really necessary; and then be careful.

Solomon L. Wisenberg suggests simply asking for the agent's business card and saying, "[M]y attorney will be in contact with you." How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents.

Good Advice.

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

New Delhi, Dec. 27: The brightest minds of the foreign policy establishment in India and the US can be trusted to find a way out of the nanny mess and ensure that Devyani Khobragade’s “full diplomatic immunity” that preceded her arrest is not undermined.

But countless Indians are still trying to figure out one question: did the super-smart Americans misread the figure of $4,500 in the visa form of the housekeeper, Sangeeta Richard, as her salary while it was that of the Indian diplomat?

The issue goes to the heart of a key section of the US visa application that tens of thousands of Indians travelling to America for work fill each year.

The Telegraph tries to find out what happened, given incessant form-filling is a national sport that few Indians can avoid playing if they want to be part of the system.

What is this $4,500 all about?

http://www.telegraphindia.com/113122...p#.Ur5SyfQW3Kc

[Ray]

India's ###-for-tat forces US ambassador Nancy Powell to call off Nepal vacation?

NEW DELHI: US ambassador Nancy Powell had a first-hand experience of India's ire as officials here politely declined to accord her special airport privileges for her Christmas vacation to Nepal.

The government had on December 19 - a week after the arrest of diplomat Devyani Khobragade — withdrawn all special airport passes to the US diplomats that allowed them access to several places at the airport not just while travelling but also for receiving and seeing off guests. It said this was a reciprocal measure as Indian diplomats were not given the same passes in the US. .....

After receiving a communication from the US Embassy about Powell's plan to travel to Nepal, the government declined to accord her any special privileges as her airport pass stood withdrawn. The ambassador's special pass came with a photo identity card unlike the "floating passes" reserved for junior diplomats. The withdrawal of the pass means that Powell will have to travel like an ordinary passenger. She will be forced to stand in a queue and also lend herself to routine frisking by security personnel.

Sources said Powell will not get any privilege in India that her Indian counterpart in the US doesn't get. The government justified this saying that Indian ambassador to the US too travels like an ordinary person. Officials cited the example of the then Indian ambassador to the US Meera Shankar, who was subjected to a public pat-down by security officials at Jackson-Evers International Airport in Mississippi in 2010. She was subjected to a secondary screening by security officials despite Shankar having presented her diplomatic credentials. India's envoy to the UN Hardeep Puri was also detained at Houston airport in Texas after he refused to take his turban off......

The US continues to seek more time for submitting details sought by India, including salaries paid to all Indian staff employed at the US consulates, citing Christmas and New Year vacations. They have also not filed the details of salaries paid to Indian staff and others in their schools in Delhi and Chennai.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/28023263.cms

An Indian government official said on Friday that New Delhi had asked the US embassy to provide details about people working in American schools and other US government facilities to determine if they had permission to do so and if they were paying taxes that are mandatory under Indian law.

Diplomats' spouses who take up work in schools or other embassy facilities are supposed to inform the host country.

Violations of this kind had often been ignored, but now India would not turn a blind eye, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...campaign=cppst


The whole issue is souring relations especially when it was getting better all the time.

[carl]

Ray:

If the Indians cut down the imperial trappings of American diplomats in India, I for one am all for it.

I have a story about that. Years ago the Chinese Ambassador came to the city I was police officering in and I was appointed the state's security detail to him. Little old me, a force of 1 to guard him and his entourage, which consisted of his wife and one other guy. And I went home when he went to bed. I showed up the next morning to find he was out taking a morning stroll by himself. He arrived in the state via commercial airline and was driven around in a rental car. All in all I thought that was all pretty cool and he and his entourage were very gracious to me. That was cool too. So anyway if the ambassador from a country of a billion people can do things plain I don't see why our people in India can't do things plain too, even if they have to be nudged a little.

(One of the Chinese guys, some kind of press attache, who met the Ambassador at the airport but was not part of his entourage turned out to be a real honest to goodness Red Chinese spy. He later got caught crashing through a fence at a national lab in a car. Maybe he wasn't such a good spy.)