View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's January 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-diplo's January 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-diplo home page.
> >Robert Hanks wrote: > > > > Are there any exceptional cases where a successful or > > prescient ambassador was scapegoated for the larger foreign policy > > failures of his or her government. >Lawrence Pope responded: > >There is the case of Hume Horan, who was removed from Saudi Arabia in >the late 1980's after he carried out instructions to deliver a tough >demarche to King Fahd protesting the covert development by the Saudis >of CSS-2 missiles, which they had acquired from China without the >knowledge of the United States. His removal took place at the instance >of the Saudis, and President Bush the first shamefully agreed to it. >The current Saudi Ambassador to Washington was very much involved. >Much (if not quite all) of this story has been public. Cary Fraser: Every state has the right to request the removal of an ambassador by the government he/she represents. That principle is standard diplomatic practice and the sending government has little recourse when confronted by such action. In this instance, one question that needs to be asked is: What purpose(s) was (were) served by the US government in asking Ambassador Horan "to deliver a tough demarche" over the acquisition of the missiles? A second question is did Ambassador Horan overstep the boundaries of diplomatic practice/etiquette in delivering that demarche? A third question is did Ambassador Horan understand that, in carrying out the instructions of his government, his appointment could be revoked? More specifically, was he a scapegoat for a larger policy failure or was he a contributor to that larger policy which resulted in discomfiture for himself or his government? Cary Fraser
|