China envoy’s post-Soviet sovereignty faux pas shows why there’s no ‘freedom of speech’ in diplomacy
- Lu Shaye, China’s ambassador to France, defended his comments on the status of post-Soviet states by stressing the importance of ‘freedom of speech’
- But in a time of high geopolitical tension, is it wise for diplomats to contradict their governments’ official positions with personal opinions?
But the wisdom of doing so at a time of high geopolitical tensions, when the words of the powerful are being scrutinised like never before, is open for debate.
Lu Shaye’s assertion also raised an important question: should diplomats be allowed to openly state their personal opinion if by doing so they seemingly contradict their governments’ official position?
I posed this question to three diplomats – two from Asia, one from Europe – and their answers were almost the same. All three asked for their names to be withheld.
They told me that diplomats can of course share their personal views in private with friends, family members and whoever else they wished. But openly airing opinions that are inconsistent with the government’s official line is not allowed.
“Especially not on Facebook or Twitter,” one diplomat emphasised.
Such terms are usually set out in either a code of conduct or a professional code of ethics that must be signed and observed.
The code, which outlines a diplomat’s duties and responsibilities and is seldom made public, also includes standards of behaviour and diplomatic core values such as honesty, integrity, objectivity and impartiality.
Furore erupts as Chinese envoy questions post-Soviet states’ sovereignty
One of the Asian diplomats who spoke to me said the Chinese foreign ministry would “definitely” have a similar code, and ventured to guess that it would be “even more strict” than those of other countries.
By way of an example, he said that based on his own observations, a rule likely exists stating that “at least two foreign service officers must be present at any diplomatic meeting”.
“Presumably to ensure that no one says or does anything out of line,” he said.
Lu triggered a furore in April after he suggested that countries that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union “don’t have effective status under international law because there is not an international agreement confirming their status as sovereign nations”.
The current geopolitical environment is complex and challenging enough, so let’s take the guessing game out of it
But in an interview with French media outlet Vu du Droit on Wednesday last week, Lu said the fallout from his comments “is not about whether I was right or wrong, but whether there is freedom of speech in public debate on television”.
According to a transcript of the interview released by the embassy on Saturday, Lu also stressed that “freedom of speech” should be guaranteed.
China’s France envoy slams ‘attack’ after post-Soviet state remarks spark uproar
I find the association between “freedom of speech” and diplomacy incongruous, mainly because I have found the countless diplomats I have interacted with over the course of my journalistic career to be the most reticent and least forthcoming in offering information.
Unless, of course, they are allowed to remain anonymous or are strictly “off the record” – meaning “for your information only” and not for further dissemination, especially not on media platforms.
Even “off the record” comments are often sparse, or downright miserly. Though having said that, these same diplomats can be extremely generous with their thoughts on topics as diverse as their hobbies, adventures or next-door neighbours.
While diplomats’ candour is often welcomed, it would be best if the media and the international community didn’t have to guess which comments made by a diplomat at a public forum are “personal” and which represent those of his or her government.
The current geopolitical environment is complex and challenging enough, so let’s take the guessing game out of it.
