CASE STUDIES IN DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE                                                                      

                          

   

CEREMONIAL COMMUNICATION: CONGRATULATION LETTER

Your country has worked closely with the government of Russia to combat drug smuggling. In the past year you have seized 10,000 tons of heroin in joint excersises. You wish to congratulate your partner for your collaboration. You also want to remind Russia that the problem is not over. You would also like to suggest a meeting to explore ways to make this cooperation longer lasting.

Your Excellency,  Ambassador of the Russian Federation.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova has the honour to present its compliments to the government of the Russian Federation on the successful collaboration in the process of combatting drugs smuggling. We want to remind that only in the past year we have seized 10,000 tons of heroin in joint exercises, for which fact we insist to congratulate you and ourselves. Nevertheless we want to remind Russia that the war on drugs is a problem which is never over. By the present, we would like, Excellency, to suggest to organize a meeting to explore ways in order to make this cooperation longer lasting.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova take this opportunity to renew to the Government of the Russian Federation the assurances  of their highest consideration.

LETTER OF CONCERN: CASE STUDY I

Write a note of concern on the following cases:

I. A UN agency has accused your country of corrupt practices.

Note to the UN Ambassador for the RM, 9 February 2016. The UN agency in the RM for economic and financial crimes considers it urgent and important to draw the attention of the Government of RM to the astronomic criminal banking schemes that are constantly unfolding in the above-mentioned system.

We avail of regular reports and documented information from inside the system, the legal right to monitor and legally obtained proof about the fraudulent practices within the system, fact which raises serious concerns and questions.

We are closely monitoring all the wire fibers of the financial-banking system of the RM as a consequence of the robbery of the century of 1 billion US$ the equivalent of a yearly budget for a catastrophically diminished country as a result of the forced exodus of the basic active educated population of the RM. We explicitly qualify the practices as corrupt criminal an organized criminal gang that are acting unpunished.

We find it necessary to warn the Government of the RM that such actions would not be tolerated by us, we urge decisive measures taken in relation with the criminal system, we insist on prosecuting the criminals who are still “working” in the system, take them red-handed, and renew the blood of the system with competent professional personnel. Otherwise, we reserve ourselves the right to intervene directly into dismantling the criminal financial pyramid through our available means and tools.

The UN agency on economic and financial frauds take the opportunity to renew to the Government of the RM the assurances of highest esteem.

LETTER OF CONCERN: CASE STUDY II

II. Google Earth has begun publishing photos of sensitive military installations of your country.

Note to the CEO of the GOOGLE company from the Defense Minister of Romania.

The Ministry of Defense of Romania considers it important to communicate a note of concern to the CEO of the GOOGLE company.

Romania is a NATO member country as you know; the organization that classically deals with collective security and defense. As it is self-understood the organization works with highly sensitive and secret information of military nature. We express our profound concern that Google Earth has begun publishing photos of sensitive military installations of our country which we qualify as espionage because it endangers the activity of the organization and leaks important information making it available for perpetrators with NON-ORTHODOX aims in view.

The Ministry of Defense of Romania asks for an urgent clarification of the situation which lead to infringement and urge for taking some preventive measures from your side, while we are going to enforce more rigorous regular checks from our side.

Please accept our assurances of most distinguished consideration.

CASE STUDY III: DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT

INCIDENT: A new art exhibition at the British Museum features treasures from the ancient world. Among those treasures are several priceless gold vases created in Beijing for the ruler. For hundreds of years these were thought to have been lost. After all this time, they have turned up in London. They belong to a private collector who is British.

TEAM 1: You represent the Government of China. You believe these treasures belong to your country. Experts who have inspected the art verify that they are pieces that once belonged to Samarkand. The present British

owner indicates that the treasures have belonged to his family for generations. They were acquired when his distant relative stole them when the British destroyed the Summer Palace in Beijing in the 19th century.

You have sent a letter to the UK Government asking for these treasures to be returned. You can argue that there are precedents for returning art.

TEAM 2: You represent the Government of the United Kingdom. You argue that the art belongs to the world, not just to China. The art is also very fragile and moving them may greatly damage them. Many other pieces of art from the Summer Palace are in other museums around the world too, and China has not asked for these to be returned. You must write a letter defending your decision to keep the art.

The Embassy of China on behalf of the Government of China to the Embassy of UK of Great Britain.

The Government of China considers it important to communicate to the Government of UK about a regrettable incident that has recently taken place at the British Museum. During the new exhibition at the British Museum which features treasures from the Ancient World, among the luxuries there have been displayed  some priceless gold vases created in Beijing for the ruler. These had been long for hundreds of years, considered as lost, but surprisingly enough these turned out in London at the above-mentioned exhibition allegedly belonging to a British collector.

We strongly believe that these valuable masterpieces belong to the patrimony of our country, but the present British owner claims that the treasures have belonged to his family for generations after they have acquired them from a distant relative who in his turn had stolen them when the British had destroyed the Summer Palace in Beijing in the 19th century.

By the present the Embassy of China notify that the experts have positively determined that the pieces of art belonged to Samarkand, thus to a Chinese dynasty. We require that the Government of GB disposes that the pieces of the Chinese patrimony once lost be returned to the country of origin as they are more than messengers of culture for us they contain concentrated history dear to the people of China. We bring the argument that there exist precedents in the International practice of returning treasures lost to the country of origin, who recuperate important valuables in such a way. If the Government of the UK refuses to take action we are going to appeal to the UNESCO to be provided legal assistance in order to recuperate the lost treasure trove.

The Embassy of China takes the opportunity to renew its assurances of highest esteem to the Government of the UK.

RESPONSE:

The Embassy of the UK on behalf of the Government of the UK has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Embassy of China’s Note regarding the British Museum Exhibition incident.

We examined the objections and claims that the Chinese partners have exposed with founding arguments in the note. We from our part have also undertaken a thorough investigation into the matter, our team of experts have studied the history of the masterpieces their sources, we have subjected them to costly verification to determine and prove that the works are genuine, belonging to the historical period they are alleged to belong, and having been acquired as a result of the mentioned circumstances. The detailed report positively, beyond reasonable doubt proved the authenticity of the Chinese vases that had belonged to Samarkand and his dynasty and indeed the nature of their acquisition in British hands had been as a war capture as a result of the conquest of the Summer Palace in Beijing in the 19th century.

However, we decline the claims of our respectful Chinese partners to return the treasures. First of all, because these already lawfully belong to the world patrimony; secondly, because these expensive vases are very fragile and technically it would be extremely risky to move them without causing damage - out of caution it is impossible to return them over such a long distance. The third argument is that many pieces of art from the mentioned Summer Palace are proud exhibits of many other museums of the world. And finally, there are many precedents when troves of the world patrimony belonging to distant countries and long ago extinct epochs are displayed in Louvre or Moma or Tretyakov Gallery and these reliques would never, under no circumstances be returned to the country of origin, which sadly might have even broken the nose of the Sphinx or subjected to other barbaric treatment the masterpieces of art and religious traditions, or please remind the cases when these had suffered or been even destroyed as a result of unfortunate accidents. These valuable vases are safe and occupy a place of honour in our museum and millions of visitors from around the world can admire them here.

The Embassy of the UK takes this opportunity to renew to the Government of China its assurances of highest esteem and openness to collaboration in the cultural domain included.

Case Study 2.

AIDE MEMOIRE FOR KOREA STANDOFF

(Standoff - 1. A situation in which one force or party neutralizes or counterbalances the other and further action is prevented; a standstill)

TEAM 1

1) Republic of Korea (South Korea): The army of North Korea began shelling Yeopyang Island without cause on November 23, 2010. 200 rounds were fired, killing 2 soldiers, and destroying dozens of homes. The army of South Korea responded by shelling North Korean positions.

2) United States: You discuss advancing soldiers to the border, preparing military aircrafts, and whether to respond militarily. You should discuss military readiness.You discuss what kind of diplomatic note to send: to the UN Security Council, to North Kore.

TEAM 2

3) Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea): Your position is that South Korea initiated the attack. You weigh possible options: military, diplomatic notes protesting South Korea’s aggressive actions, further threats to South Korea.

4) China: Your Ambassador in Pyongyang meets with the North Korean MFA to learn what happened. You wish to push the North Korean side to step back and return to six‐party diplomatic talks. You should remind North Korea that it is a signatory to the 1953 armistice.

TEAM 3

5) Japan: You wish to condemn the attacks and convince the other members of the six party talks to take a more aggressive stance against North Korea. You wish to persuade Russia that the time for talks have passed and that pressure should be increased (for instance: more sanctions, a UN resolution to condemn North Korea, a military blockade, a commission of inquiry)

6. Russia: You wish to return to six party talks but you are not prepared to push for increase of sanctions. Your position is that some form of diplomacy should prevail.

2. The Embassy of USA to the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Embassy of the USA on behalf of the Government of the USA informs the Government of the DPR of Korea that we have been recently briefed on the dangerous military confrontation initiated by your army. On the 23 November 2010 the army of North Korea without any cause or reason started to shell Yeopyang Island. 200 rounds had been fired producing human and material casualties: 2 soldiers had been killed as a result and dozens of houses had been destroyed. We have also been informed that the army of South Korea retaliated by responding with shelling the North Korean positions.

Taking in consideration our commitment to the  military agreements mutually signed with the South Korea but also our immediate interests which consist in securing the oceanic territories that are in common use, we believe we are obliged to take a stand so as to prevent a possible escalation of the conflict. Our possible moves that we examine to undertake in the given circumstances are: to advance soldiers to the border, preparing military aircrafts. We would also like to bring to your kind attention that we are considering heightening the degree of military readiness and even responding militarily in the kind.

From our part we would like to mention that the diplomatic path of solving the conflict remains open. We are discussing about sending a diplomatic note to the UNO Security Council by insisting on an extraordinary convention of the Security Council to discuss, examine and take a decision about further actions in relation with the risky incident between the two Koreas.

4. The Embassy of China to the Embassy of the DPR of Korea. The Embassy of China on behalf of the Government of China brings to your attention the fact that our Ambassador in Pyongyang met with the MFA of the DPR Korea to inquire and discuss about the details from the first source on the regrettable incident of military nature that took place on the 23 November 2010. As a result of the discussion and information from other sources, the inquest that we had undertaken individually, we deduced that North Korea is the aggressor part which initiated the military intervention by shelling without reason the Yeopyang Island; 200 of rounds had been fired causing havoc and casualties both human victims and material damages. The Southern Korean army were only compelled to respond to the provocation in kind and not as it was wrongly qualified by North Korea as they being the initiators. In these circumstances we urge the North Korean side to step back, to stop the aggression, provocations and manipulations. We also plead to return to the six-party diplomatic talks.

We see ourselves obliged to insistently remind North Korea that you are the signatory to the 1953 armistice according to which you must refrain from provocations and military interventions in the name of common interests and security in the region but also by ensuring peace in the non-state oceanic territories.

3.From the Embassy of Japan to the Embassy of Russian Federation. The Embassy of Japan on behalf of the Japanese Government informs the Government of the Russian Federation that we strongly condemn the mutual armed attacks undertaken in the Yellow Sea zone on the 23 November 2010, in which we qualify the North Korea as initiator-aggressor; while South Korea responded in self-defence. As a result of that military attacks the situation in the region has become tenser. The North Korean side contends that the other part their rival - South Korea are guilty of the escalation of the long-lasting conflict, because namely them initiated the attack, which is wrong.

We pinpoint that as result of these mutual attacks with casualties, the 1953 Armistice had been infringed, to which both parts involved in the conflict are signatory. That treat clearly determines the Northern limit line for the sides in conflict, beyond which Northern Korea are obliged to refrain from unfolding any military exercises or any other activities in order to avoid escalation of the conflict.

We urge the six party talks including North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, the USA and the Russian Federation to be re-scheduled in an urgent manner. We insistently wish to persuade the Russian Federation that at this moment the time for negotiations has already passed and we should rather resort to increased pressure and coercive measures in respects to the North Korea. We aim at obtaining a UN resolution with officially condemning North Korea’s actions, imposing a military blockade while a commissioned inquiry is going to unfold in the region with experts from all the six parts involved in the mediation process under the direction of the UNO Security Council previsions.

4. The Embassy of the Russian Federation on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation to the Embassy of Japan. We have taken note of the latest developments in the region of the Yellow Sea contested territories. We have been informed in thorough detail about the incident from the 23 November 2010, when North Korean army had bombarded the Yeopyang Island, as a result of an enormous number of bombs fired - 200, they brought casualties of human and material nature to the localities on land. We had also been informed that North Korea had accused South Korea of having attacked the first, which was wrong, according to the information at our disposal, South Korea have only responded militarily as a retaliation for being attacked by their hostile neighbour.

We, from our part, acknowledge the need for restarting the negotiations process in the six party format, we also support the initiative of releasing a UNO official  resolution in which we would reflect our common position on the conflict and renew our collective defence plea. However, we are not prepared to place pressure and push for an increase of sanctions for the North Korean part.

We take advantage of the present diplomatic exchange to reaffirm our steady position to solve conflicts in a diplomatic and political way, even in a situation of crisis like the present one, we consider that the constructive diplomacy should prevail over punitive measures such as sanctions which might be destructive for all parts involved.

CASE STUDY II: DEMARCHE.

Russia: You write a demarche reflecting your position.

Objective: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation addresses the following demarche to the UNO Security Council, to inform about our position on the recent military incident between the Democratic Popular Republic of Korea and South Korea.

Arguments: The military confrontation that has a long-standing, persistent basis between the two parts involved in a territorial dispute, could become a dangerous precedent. We in our capacity of the permanent Member of the UNO Security Council, but also being a part in the six format arbitration process on the problem of conflict between the two above-mentioned belligerent countries, we consider it our obligation to take a stand and intervene with some proposals.

Background:  Immediately in the aftermath of the bombardments undertaken by North Korea of the  Yeopyang Island, on the 23 November 2010, a military intervention that resulted in casualties of both material nature and human victims, we engaged into a diplomatic communication and exchange with our partners from the six format negotiation group, in particular with the Japanese part. We consider it necessary to mention that the Japanese partners are not allies with any of the parts involved in the conflict, so that we have objectively shared information on the military incident and have been briefed on the further developments.

We would like to highlight for the UNO Security Council that the North Korean part do not assume responsibility for initiating the shelling of the South Korean territory. Moreover they are denying being the first to strike and re-enter the military confrontation, by this infringing the  provisions of the 1953 armistice, concluded during a long a painstaking negotiation process in the six countries format. On the contrary, according to our information, they had even accused the South Korean part of being the initiators.

SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS: We seek to persuade the UNO Security Council about the probable escalation of the conflict with serious consequences for which nobody would be possible to be held accountable, if we do not timely intervene. We, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation, strongly condemn North Korea for the shelling of the islands belonging to South Korea, beyond the North Limit Line of demarcation traced in the Far-Eat-Pacific zone as a result of the signed armistice in the 1953. We seriously object against North Korea’s adopted position of accusing the other part for the provocation, thus, not even vindicating that they are the perpetrators.

In our previous diplomatic exchange of communications with Japan they proposed to adopt a common UNO Security Council resolution, publicly presenting our joint evaluation and position on the conflict, which we supported. The Japanese partners also suggested adopting more punitive measures in respect to North Korea, which we initially refrained to endorse.

However, taking into consideration the latest development of events we reviewed our position, and we believe that if after a thorough investigation into those events the UNO Security Council decides upon imposing economic sanctions or undertaking a military blockade in their respects,  we are going to support this proposal.

Conclusion: Our conclusion is that the international community cannot hold back from adopting a firm position on a case of military conflict between countries, because this could endanger the situation constituting a threat for the common security and by taking a stand we prevent the case from becoming a serious precedent for reference.

Case Study III.

You are negotiating a new counter narcotics plan for the region. You are negotiating with the United States, Russia, and several Central Asian countries, including Afghanistan. The new arrangement calls for more inspections of shipments and vehicles and more information sharing. You suspect that the regime in Kabul is making promises it will not keep, and may not be interested in sharing information. You write a secret memo to the other countries suggesting an alternative proposal.

MEMORANDUM.

Strictly confidential.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova to the Embassies of Russian Federation, USA, Georgia for the respective Governments.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova with reference to the latest round of negotiations with the representatives of the Russian Federation, the USA, and Georgia on the problem of arms contraband and drugs traffic. Taking into consideration the scope of the phenomenon that has taken lately a dangerous spread in a threatening amount throughout the world, and as a consequence of disturbing events that it had caused in our country with the direct involvement of forces dealing in such a deadly trade, we decided to engage more actively in the world drugs war. Our country, due to its geographical position and the political-territorial conflict - the impact of the self-declared Transdniestrian autonomy, this territory has become a buffer zone between Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, but also a highly sensitive transit “silk road” of all the criminal activities within the international system, arms and drugs traffic included.

As it can be observed from the address in the opening paragraph, we did not include in the present communication Afghanistan, although they had participated in all the rounds of negotiations up till the present. The motive is obvious and entirely justified. We do not trust the Afghan part as a fair dedicated to the common cause partner, more than this - we suspect them of playing a risky double play, while taking part in our common talks - acting deliberately in their interest and actually backing the trade in drugs, with the help of the obtained in such a privileged way information; they being, we all know, the world’s leading producer of opium and derivatives.

We insist on the present exchange in the view of warning our committed partners about the suspect activities from the part of the Afghan part and in order to strengthen our vow to enforce the new arrangement, which we remind you, provides a more consistent and rigid inspection of shipments and vehicles in transit both at the border customs points but also on land throughout the territory of the highly sensitive zones. In the above-mentioned operations all military and police specialized forces should be involved with the advanced screening equipment for the purpose but also highly trained personnel and dogs.

We from our part would like to reiterate that we are sceptical that the regime from Kabul are going to homour their promise and cooperate benevolently, they might, on the contrary, sabotage our joint actions, and we are confident that they would never be interested in sharing information with us, as convened and as provided by our latest signed arrangement.

Our objective for the present memo consists in raising awareness on our common problem, and to propose to upper the level of readiness, secrecy and vigilance regarding the joint operations we are planning and unfolding on drugs traffic combatting and counterterrorism. We propose to establish a training center so as to prepare and enhance the competence of special forces, experts in gathering intelligence, detection and prevention of drugs trafficking and counterterrorism.  Thus, we point it down, we insist on limiting the exchange of info with the regime from Kabul and tightening the intelligence , preventive and control measures in their respects, because, let us not forget that the drugs war is extremely costly; that is blood money for the drug lords and this war is not confined within a country, nor hindered, detained by secular traditions walls or conventional borders.

STATEMENTS

• Informal, and conversational in tone. Often delivered in the form of a speech, and then subsequently distributed to the media.
• A form of public diplomacy.
• Sometimes contained in the body of a press release.
• The format is like a press release, and indicates the date and the place the statement is made.

TEAM 1: You represent the government of Canada. A citizen of Nigeria living in your country has been kidnapped. That citizen is Steven Dikko, a former Minister in Nigeria. Your police discover Minister Dikko drugged and unconscious in a large box at the airport. That box was waiting for a plane from Nigeria but is not marked as “diplomatic baggage”. Inside the box, sitting beside the drugged Dikko, is an agent from Mossad. You write a statement condemning the actions of Nigeria.

TEAM 2: You represent the government of Nigeria. Your Ambassador in Ottawa has been summoned by Canada’s Minister of Foreign Relations to explained the kidnapping of a Nigerian citizen living in Canada and to explain why Dikko was found in a box awaiting shipment to Nigeria. You write a statement denying any involvement in this affair.

STATEMENT:

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada to the Ministry of FA of Nigeria.

We denounce, expresses the dismay and are expecting for an explanation on the recent shocking Ottawa airport incident. We inform you that a Nigerian citizen who was living in our country, had been kidnapped and drugged, then found unconscious in a large box at the Ottawa airport, waiting for the destination of Nigeria. When we examined the documents, it turned out that the man was not a simple citizen who had been caught in dangerous, risky for his life circumstances, with difficult to predict denouement and consequences; the given citizen is a former Minister from Nigeria. We would like to add that besides the fact that Mr Steven Dikko was prepared to be transported in inadequate, inhuman conditions - in a box, that box was not marked as “diplomatic baggage”; so it would not have received a special treatment and attention but would have been handled as ordinary luggage, thus being shipped in a rear part of the plane uninsured and unsecured, not even animals receive such a treatment. In addition to the weirdest fact above-described, we bring to your kind attention that in the same box with Mr Dikko there was an agent from Mossad, an organization which deals with collecting intelligence, specialized in counterterrorism, and reporting directly to the Prime Minister. The presence of the agent is suggestive of the fact that the operation has a direct connection and can be immediately traced and attributed to a state command, we see the link to the Nigerian authorities. We are outraged by the entire event as it is entirely illegal, criminal because it causes harm to the health of a human being, is dehumanizing, humiliating the person and his dignity; we cannot account on the unfolding of the case, the torture would most probably continue on arrival at the destination in your country.

Whichever would have been your intentions, or no matter how serious would have been the charges against the citizen in point, even if guilty of high treason or plot against your state, or maybe even if accused of an enormous theft from the budget, thus having  masterminded an endangering blow to the economy of your country; we from our part consider ourselves a democratic, civilized country, where human rights are being respected, so that citizens avail themselves of the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.

We expect your explanations in respects to the unfathomable actions against Mr Steven Dikko, the former Nigerian Minister, we assure you that if he had been declared wanted by Interpol, searched for by your government in connection with whatever charges, we would have cooperated to detect and detain the accused by legal means and in a civil manner.

RESPONSE:

On behalf of the Government of Nigeria to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada. In response to the regrettable incident at the Ottawa airport involving two Nigerian citizens, we from our part express our protest and deny having anything to do with the plotting and mode of action in that event. We have been briefed that our Ambassador to Canada has been shortly after the incident summoned by Canada’s Minister of FA to give explanations on the kidnapping and mistreatment of our Nigerian citizen. Besides, the second citizen found near the drugged, unconscious Mr Dikko, we point it down(!) was not accompanying the “freight” but was in the box too; thus, also an “undiplomatic piece of baggage”, and not in charge with the operation, not the performer, but another victim suffering from the unlawful criminal actions by a third party.

We take the opportunity to bring some light and clarify the situation, which as you can understand was not commanded by the state authorities. We the Nigerian Government, do have all the legal mechanisms and means to act in conformity and compliance with the provisions of the international law and we protest to the allegations that we do not respect human rights.

We have undertaken an inquest, a police investigation on the incident so as to find out who had the interest in bringing by force Mr Dikko back to the country, not to mention that fetching him under the most repulsive circumstances and conditions. We reiterate, that the citizen Dikko has never been accused of any illegalities or crimes against the State nor while detaining the mandate of Member of Government, thus in a high position in the state, or afterwards in his quality of an ordinary citizen. However, we are informed of Mr Dikko’s business activities, which might have been dihonorouble, fishy, suspect; the rumours go that he might have been escaped from the country because of his frauds and swindling actions in business relations; more than this, he might have engaged in risky illegal activities, while being in the high position, thau a privileged condition, jeopardizing not only his activity but also life as we can deduce from this last incident.

We express again our regret in connection with the airport incident, we are going to investigate the case and come with a fair verdict on it, thus punish all the perpetrators involved in the conflict.