We should remind ourselves that the United Nations, founded in 1945, operates under a charter drafted to promote sovereign equality of States simply because some are new while others are old.
It is indisputable that some States have limited resources, while others (small or large) have abundant resources and a gigantic military.
To ensure understanding and respect, pseudo-equality has to be established for all small states to make them feel as equal as the large ones. They are not because a country like Burundi cannot be compared with Luxembourg in terms of international politics, economy, and social aspects.
Second, maintaining international peace and security through forged sovereign equality, newly independent states, and poor countries serving as free economic zones or free trade areas where powerful nationals achieve their objectives.
This is done with the assistance of local communities without fighting among themselves, as was the case during the First and Second World Wars.
Thirdly, the United Nations was found to promote friendly relations among nations because conservative theorists believe that a state is an egoistic organisation, so it is easy to imagine the kind of friendly relationship among such self-centred entities.
READ RELATED: U.S. Foreign Policy and Lessons for Tanzania: Navigating a Multipolar World
Nevertheless, authoritative statements such as conventions and treaties have been established to ensure mutual relationships and consent exist among nations.
However, “convention interpreted can vary from state to state” because envoys must familiarise themselves and internalise receiving states’ practices, procedures, and precedents to avoid confrontation.
After President Samia Suluhu Hassan called off the US Embassy in Tanzania’s involvement in internal affairs in observation of the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations of 1961(VCDR), article 4, the literature has this to say about it, simply by observing the particularity of the US diplomatic mission in Tanzania and the limit of the non-interference principle.
US foreign policy was established to promote freedom, democracy, and the protection of human rights globally.
By accepting a permanent mission to Tanzania, the country needs to know the political and legal limitations of American foreign policy because foreign interference is one of their interests, especially when freedom and human rights are violated.
Article 11 of VCDR identifies the existence of broad missions and shows how states can agree upon their operations. However, the question of size, normal, and reasons for the mission may not be important, especially when one of the sovereign states is small and has limited resources.
The article asserts that in the absence of a specific agreement, the receiving state may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits it considers, having some regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving state to the need of the particular mission.
Considering US legal, technical, and policy competence and expertise, it is clear that the US may employ ambiguity in its foreign policy and diplomatic mission to have a broader scope that will allow it to foster national interests.
The question here is: Does my beautiful country consider the need to negotiate and agree upon the particularities of the US diplomatic mission and other developed countries?
Does the word ‘democracy’ and human rights protection only be limited to internal authorities, even though they may not be capable of adequate protection?
I never expected the US to remain silent, even though its voice has been misinterpreted as interfering with Tanzania’s internal affairs.
Representative Character Theory believes that the US Embassy in Tanzania is US in nature; it manifests and demonstrates with courage the same principles and norms the US stands for.
An undemocratic state will never stand to criticise or recommend governance, freedom, human rights and democracy in other countries for two reasons: one, the reciprocity principle and second, they represent an undemocratic government.
Since I have limited knowledge of whether the agreement upon the limit of freedom, democracy, and human rights that the US stands for has been made or whether Ujamaa politics can dominate such critical legal aspects, human rights Attachés might be sent to avoid conflict of interest.
This is between the receiving state and Embassy in case the mission is too broad. If so, the country must make clear statements on the human rights that Embassies have to promote and which democracy the Muungano government entertain to avoid misunderstanding or setback diplomatic functions.
Receiving states must be obeyed even though envoys have immunity. Therefore, there shouldn’t be acts of interference with internal affairs. According to the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), non-interference is solely limited to “making public political statements” and “carrying out commercial activities.”
Anthony Aust (2010), in his book “Handbook of International Law” 2nd Ed, highlights the ignorance in the interpretation of Article 4(1) on page 138. He asserts that;
“Interference in the internal affairs of the receiving State. The scope of this duty is not always well understood. It does not mean that a diplomat cannot if instructed by his government, express in public views about the domestic policy of the receiving State, even though his government must be careful not to interfere in those affairs. But a diplomat must not express his personal views on such matters even if he or she feels strongly”.
Two conditions worth specifying for an application are instructions from the sending state and personal involvement as a condition of non-involvement.
Does US Ambassador to Tanzania voicing up against the killing and abduction of opposition members have the personal benefit or “Why will there never be a coup d’ètat in Washington?”
A country like Tanzania has a lot to learn from the US, UK, EU and Canada simply because these countries and organizations have interfered with our culture, economy, politics and education for good for quite some time.
Imagine they train and prepare the national constitution, national budget, syllabuses, and all local experts. Denouncing them indicates that we have found other partners who may or may not care about fundamental freedoms and human rights.
The American Ambassador’s comment was appropriate, considering that only the Republic of Kenya in East Africa can at least comment on human rights.
At the same time, the rest of the member states are ashamed of their actions and refuse to stand against the violations continuing in Tanzania. Neither the government of Kenya nor the East Africa Regional Authority dares to question the Tanzanian government’s accountability.
Without shame or feelings of betrayal to my country, I applaud the United States Ambassador to Tanzania, Michael Battle, on behalf of all activists and human rights defenders operating in this lovely country.
