thesolar65
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,922
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
NEW DELHI: Diplomatic tit-for-tat is as familiar a concept in international relations as diplomatic immunity. While diplomatic immunity is written into the Vienna Conventions that cover most modern diplomatic and consular practices, privileges extended to diplomats are often based on reciprocity between countries, though they often weigh heavily in favour of the richer countries of the Global North.
One of the best known spats was that between Brazil and the US. When in 2003, the US started photographing and fingerprinting those requiring visas to enter the US, a judge in Brazil ruled that US citizens coming to Brazil ought to be given the same treatment. Americans alone were often detained at airports in Brazil for hours to get fingerprinted and photographed.
Washington protested saying while the US did it to people from all over, Brazil was targeting only Americans. Brazil responded by pointing out that people from 27 countries were exempted from fingerprinting and photographing in the US and Brazil believed it ought to be on that list. The tit-for-tat fingerprinting was dropped quietly later. However, Brazilian visa charges remain the highest for Americans, commensurate with what the US charges Brazilians.
While there are fewer spats of these kinds between OECD countries which often form a cosy club of mutual visa exemptions and fewer security restrictions, it is often emerging economies like Brazil, India, China or South Africa which have reacted sharply.
The spats have been numerous and sharp between developing countries too. That is not to say that tit-for-tat diplomacy is not used by the developed world, especially against developing countries. The US in particular is well known for its tit-for-tat diplomacy.
In April 2011, the US ordered the expulsion of Ecuador's ambassador to Washington in a tit-for-tat move after the US envoy to Quito was told to leave over leaked diplomatic cables, part of the Wikileak cables. Russia banned Americans from adopting its orphans at the beginning of 2013. The move was said to be in retaliation for legislation before Congress to ban Russian officials accused of human rights abuses from travelling to the US.
According to the New York Times, in the 1980s, the US had forced Mexican diplomats to use only Mexican-made economy cars, not the big American limousines that most foreign diplomats in Washington used. This was in retaliation for US diplomats in Mexico being allowed to own and operate only automobiles manufactured in Mexico. When Mexico protested saying it was not reciprocity, the US countered that their aim in retaliating was to eliminate restrictions on their foreign missions.
More recently, in March 2012, South Africa decided to deport 125 Nigerians because they allegedly possessed fake yellow fever inoculation certificates. Within a few days, Nigeria retaliated by deporting 131 South Africans supposedly travelling with fake documents.
In 2009, Britain revoked South Africa's visa-free status and in 2013 it was charging South Africans £80 for a visa. And South Africa threatened to charge visiting Britons a similar hefty visa fee, though it could ill-afford to discourage British tourists considering the fact that Britain is South Africa's largest overseas tourism market, with over 438,000 British visitors last year.
Closer home, the most familiar tit-for-tat diplomacy is visa denial to each other's citizens or mutual expulsion of diplomats most often by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whatever part of the world, tit-for-tat diplomacy seems to be often a relatively harmless way for aggrieved countries to let off steam and salve their injured sense of sovereignty and dignity. It is seen as preventing petty differences from escalating into full blown hostility.
US old player in game of tit-for-tat - The Times of India
One of the best known spats was that between Brazil and the US. When in 2003, the US started photographing and fingerprinting those requiring visas to enter the US, a judge in Brazil ruled that US citizens coming to Brazil ought to be given the same treatment. Americans alone were often detained at airports in Brazil for hours to get fingerprinted and photographed.
Washington protested saying while the US did it to people from all over, Brazil was targeting only Americans. Brazil responded by pointing out that people from 27 countries were exempted from fingerprinting and photographing in the US and Brazil believed it ought to be on that list. The tit-for-tat fingerprinting was dropped quietly later. However, Brazilian visa charges remain the highest for Americans, commensurate with what the US charges Brazilians.
While there are fewer spats of these kinds between OECD countries which often form a cosy club of mutual visa exemptions and fewer security restrictions, it is often emerging economies like Brazil, India, China or South Africa which have reacted sharply.
The spats have been numerous and sharp between developing countries too. That is not to say that tit-for-tat diplomacy is not used by the developed world, especially against developing countries. The US in particular is well known for its tit-for-tat diplomacy.
In April 2011, the US ordered the expulsion of Ecuador's ambassador to Washington in a tit-for-tat move after the US envoy to Quito was told to leave over leaked diplomatic cables, part of the Wikileak cables. Russia banned Americans from adopting its orphans at the beginning of 2013. The move was said to be in retaliation for legislation before Congress to ban Russian officials accused of human rights abuses from travelling to the US.
According to the New York Times, in the 1980s, the US had forced Mexican diplomats to use only Mexican-made economy cars, not the big American limousines that most foreign diplomats in Washington used. This was in retaliation for US diplomats in Mexico being allowed to own and operate only automobiles manufactured in Mexico. When Mexico protested saying it was not reciprocity, the US countered that their aim in retaliating was to eliminate restrictions on their foreign missions.
More recently, in March 2012, South Africa decided to deport 125 Nigerians because they allegedly possessed fake yellow fever inoculation certificates. Within a few days, Nigeria retaliated by deporting 131 South Africans supposedly travelling with fake documents.
In 2009, Britain revoked South Africa's visa-free status and in 2013 it was charging South Africans £80 for a visa. And South Africa threatened to charge visiting Britons a similar hefty visa fee, though it could ill-afford to discourage British tourists considering the fact that Britain is South Africa's largest overseas tourism market, with over 438,000 British visitors last year.
Closer home, the most familiar tit-for-tat diplomacy is visa denial to each other's citizens or mutual expulsion of diplomats most often by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whatever part of the world, tit-for-tat diplomacy seems to be often a relatively harmless way for aggrieved countries to let off steam and salve their injured sense of sovereignty and dignity. It is seen as preventing petty differences from escalating into full blown hostility.
US old player in game of tit-for-tat - The Times of India
