With privileges withdrawn, Nancy Powell calls off Nepal visit

[bolo]

hahaha says who? A chinese? Somedays Americans are gonna kick your a$$ from there and guess what you have to move to China only.

Sorry to interrupt your erection, but US+15 allies could not defeat a weak China during Korean war when the technology gap between China and the US were one hundred years apart.

 

[Indo-guy]

For repeatedly making baseless claims and refusing to look things up, I'm putting you on "ignore". To talk to me again, you'll have to get another member to intercede for you.

@Soloman2
you need to substantiate your assertions with proper reference , link etc
We would be thankful to you if you can do so.
if there is any mis-understanding on our part we will like it to be clarified .
Your assertions can't be accepted without valid proof ....just because you are saying so .

In earlier threads I had posted links to US state department's self -indicting report which confirms US is not paying locally employed staff at par with US recommended minimum daily wage all over the world ..

US double standards in applying laws , conventions , treaties to others without feeling obligations to follow themselves are world known ...

If you wish to be taken seriously ...you will cross beyond usual rhetoric of being tired of spoon feeding ...

Courtesy demands that you back up your assertion with proof !

I have never lived in China. Failed.



Amen to your statement. But we have to protect Americans against those kangaroo courts in India. So its best that our diplomats come home. Or we can build a compound in the big cities that include a movie theater, wave pool, bowling ally, shopping center, etc in the American consulate so they would not be subject to Indian intimidation.

we are protecting Our diplomat against kangaroo court in US !
and we will take it to its logical conclusion ....mark my words !

US will have to bow down to truth ...and will have to let our Diplomat walk free ....

The "double standards" charge is often made but can be very difficult to sustain when details are considered.

You should read following article ...may be you will feel enlightened as to why whole world is tired of US double standards !


Do international rules apply only to weaker states? | Stagecraft and Statecraft


On the face of it, there is nothing in common between China’s Nov. 23 declaration of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) extending to territories it does not control and America’s Dec. 12 arrest, strip-search and handcuffing of a New York-based Indian diplomat for allegedly underpaying a nanny she had brought with her from India. Still, these actions epitomize these powers’ unilateralist approach to international law.
A just, rules-based global order has long been touted by powerful states as essential for international peace and security. Yet there is a long history of major powers using international law against other states but not complying with it themselves, and even reinterpreting or making new multilateral rules to further their interests. The League of Nations failed because it could not punish or deter some powers from flouting international law.
Today, the United States and China serve as prime examples of a unilateralist approach to international relations, even as they aver support for strengthening international rules and institutions.
Take the U.S.: Its refusal to join a host of critical international treaties — ranging from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses to the 1998 International Criminal Court Statute — has set a bad precedent. Add to the picture its international “invasions” in various forms, including cyber warfare and Orwellian surveillance, drone attacks, and regime-change interventions.
Unilateralism has remained the leitmotif of U.S. foreign policy, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. Forget international law, President Barack Obama bypassed even Congress when he militarily effected a regime change in 2011 in Libya — an intervention that has backfired, sowing chaos and turning that country into a breeding ground for Al Qaeda-linked, transnational militants, some of whom assassinated the American ambassador there.
Carrying out foreign military interventions by cobbling coalitions together under the watchword “you’re either with us or against us” has exacted — as Iraq and Afghanistan attest — a staggering cost in blood and treasure without advancing U.S. interests in a tangible or sustainable manner.
Meanwhile, China’s growing geopolitical heft has emboldened its muscle-flexing and territorial nibbling in Asia, in disregard of international norms. China rejects some of the same treaties that the U.S. has declined to join, including the International Criminal Court Statute and the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses — the first law that lays down rules on the shared resources of transnational rivers, lakes and aquifers.
China has established a hydro-supremacy unparalleled in the world by annexing the starting places of multiple major international rivers — the Tibetan plateau and Xinjiang — and working to reengineer cross-border flows by building dams, barrages, and other structures. Yet China — the source of transboundary river flows to more countries than any other hydro-hegemon — rejects the very concept of water sharing and refuses to enter into institutionalized arrangements with any neighbor.
At the same time, China has been pressing steadily outward on its borders, intimidating its neighbors through military incursions as part of a relentless territorial creep.
China has never been as large as it is today, except when it was ruled by the foreign Mongol and Manchu dynasties. Yet China remains territorially a revolutionary power bent on upending the status quo in Asia. Its assertive claims rooted in revisionist history, along with its penchant for brinkmanship, threaten Asian peace and stability.
Through a strategy of “extended coercion,” China is waging creeping, covert warfare in Asia while seeking to neutralize U.S. extended deterrence so as to keep America at bay. Washington, far from coming to the aid of its allies and strategic partners, has chartered a course of neutrality on sovereignty disputes to help protect its deep engagement with China.
America’s appeal to China to act as a “responsible stakeholder” in the global system undergirds the need for the two powers to address their geopolitical dissonance. Yet the world’s most-powerful democracy and autocracy have much in common on how they approach international law.
For example, the precedent that the U.S. set in a 1984 International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed by Nicaragua still resonates globally, underscoring that might remains right in international relations, instead of the rule of law.
The ICJ held that Washington violated international law both by aiding the contras in their insurrection against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua’s harbors. The U.S. — which refused to participate in the proceedings after the court rejected its argument that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case — blocked the judgment’s enforcement by the U.N. Security Council, preventing Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation.
The only important country that has still not ratified UNCLOS is the U.S., preferring to reserve the right to act unilaterally. Yet it seeks to draw benefits from this convention, including freedom of navigation of the seas.
China, for its part, still appears to hew to Mao Zedong’s belief that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” So it will not consider international adjudication to resolve its territorial claims in, say, the South China Sea, more than 80 percent of which it now claims arbitrarily.
Indeed, it ratified UNCLOS only to reinterpret its provisions and unveil a nine-dashed claim line in the South China Sea and draw enclosing baselines around the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. Worse still, China has refused to accept the UNCLOS dispute-settlement mechanism in order to remain unfettered in altering facts on the ground.
The Philippines, which has lost effective control to a creeping China of first the Scarborough Shoal and then the Second Thomas Shoal since 2012, has filed a complaint against Beijing with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Beijing, however, has simply refused to participate in the proceedings, as if it were above international law.
Whatever the tribunal’s decision, Beijing will simply shrug it off. Only the Security Council can enforce any international tribunal’s judgment on a noncompliant state. But China wields a veto there and will block enforcement of an adverse ruling, just as the U.S. did in the Nicaraguan case.
Even so, Beijing has mounted punitive pressures on Manila to withdraw its case, which seeks to invalidate China’s nine-dashed line. Beijing’s precondition that the Philippines abandon its case forced President Benigno Aquino to cancel his visit to the China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning three months ago.
Beijing’s new air-defense zone, while aimed at solidifying its claims to territories held by Japan and South Korea, is provocative because it extends to areas China does not control, setting a dangerous precedent in international relations. China and Japan, and China and South Korea, now have “dueling” ADIZs, increasing the risks of armed conflict, especially between Japan and China, in an atmosphere of nationalist grandstanding over conflicting claims.
Japan has asked its airlines to ignore China’s demand for advance notification of flights even if they are merely transiting the new zone and not heading toward Chinese territorial airspace. By contrast, the Obama administration has advised U.S. carriers to obey the prior-notification demand.
There is a reason why Washington has taken a different stance on this issue than its ally Japan: Although the prior-notification rule in American policy applies only to aircraft headed for U.S. national airspace, the U.S., in actual practice, demands advance notification of all civilian and military flights through its ADIZ, regardless of their intended destination.
If other countries emulated the example set by China and the U.S. to establish unilateral claims to international airspace, a dangerous situation would result. Before every country asserts the right to establish an ADIZ with its own standards, binding multilateral rules must be created to ensure the safety of the fast-growing commercial air traffic. But who will take the lead in this direction — the two countries that have pursued a unilateralist approach on this issue?
Now consider the case of the Indian diplomat, whose treatment India’s national security adviser called “despicable and barbaric.” The 39-year-old diplomat was arrested and handcuffed as she dropped off her daughter at a Manhattan school, then stripped and cavity-searched and kept in a cell with drug addicts and prostitutes for several hours before posting $250,000 bail.
True, this consular official enjoyed only limited diplomatic immunity under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), unlike embassy-based diplomats who have broad protection under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). But the VCCR guarantees freedom from detention until trial and conviction, except for “grave offenses.”
Can a wage dispute between a diplomat and her nanny qualify as a “grave offense” warranting arrest and humiliation? The U.S. would not have dared to arrest a Chinese or Russian diplomat for a similar offense. In fact, just days earlier on Dec. 5, when New York prosecutors charged 49 past or present Russian diplomats and their spouses for an alleged $1.5 million Medicaid fraud, no one was arrested, let alone strip-searched and handcuffed, although some of the defendants still worked in New York at the Russian Consulate and the Russian Mission to the United Nations.
The U.S. had no legal grounds to arrest the Indian diplomat because the alleged offense — violating an agreement on the wages of a single employee — cannot pass the “grave” test. The issue was not immunity but inviolability (from arrest, strip-search, and handcuffing) as guaranteed by the VCCR. Instead of treating her as a criminal, why didn’t the U.S. simply ask India to withdraw her? Would the U.S. tolerate similar treatment of one of its consular officers?
The harsh truth is that the U.S. interprets the VCCR restrictively at home but liberally overseas so as to shield even the spies and contractors it sends. A classic case involved the CIA contractor Raymond Davis — supposedly an “adviser” at the American consulate in Lahore, Pakistan — who fatally shot two men in 2011 on a Lahore street. Claiming that Davis was a bona fide diplomat who enjoyed immunity from prosecution, Washington accused Pakistan of “illegally detaining” him, with Obama defending him as “our diplomat.”
The U.S. included the name of Davis on the list of its diplomats serving in Pakistan only after he committed the double murder, according to Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s then ambassador to the U.S. The U.S. ultimately secured his release by paying “blood money” of about $2.4 million to the relatives of the men he killed.
When the U.S. invokes immunity for one of its diplomats, it is never for a trifling offense, such as underpayment to a nanny. In a case last July, the U.S. spirited out a diplomat from Kenya barely 24 hours after he rammed his speeding SUV into a full minibus, killing one and wounding eight others.
Despite a widely held belief that the present international system is pivoted on rules, the fact is that major powers are rule makers and rule imposers, not rule takers. They have a propensity to violate or manipulate international law when it is in their interest to do so.
Given the innately self-calculating and self-aggrandizing human nature, nations — like individuals — have all through history sought to gain dominance over the weaker ones. The advent of new technologies and reduced transportation costs has made the world increasingly interdependent in trade and capital flows, with the interdependencies extending to technological, public-health, environmental, and climate spheres. Globalization, in turn, has spurred new international treaties and rules.
Yet the more the world has changed, the more it has remained the same in one basic aspect — the stronger still dominate the weaker.
While the weak remain meek, strength respects strength. The U.S. and China are careful not to tread on each other’s toes. Neither is willing to challenge the other directly.
China’s assertiveness has been largely directed at its neighbors. It did not veto the U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya that NATO used as a cover to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. The U.S., for its part, has not only refused to take sides in the sovereignty disputes between China and its neighbors, but also failed to honor its Mutual Defense Treaty obligations with the Philippines despite China’s effective seizure of the Scarborough Shoal and the Second Thomas Shoal. Indeed, Washington has looked the other way as Beijing — in defiance of the guidelines of the U.S.-led Nuclear Suppliers Group (of which China is a member) — launched work on two new nuclear-power reactors in Pakistan in November 2013, in addition to the two reactors already in advanced stage of construction.
Universal conformity to a rules-based international order thus is still not on the horizon. Indeed, the real issue is as to who will guard the supposed guardians of the international system.

 

[faithfulguy]

@Soloman2
you need to substantiate your assertions with proper reference , link etc
We would be thankful to you if you can do so.
if there is any mis-understanding on our part we will like it to be clarified .
Your assertions can't be accepted without valid proof ....just because you are saying so .

In earlier threads I had posted links to US state department's self -indicting report which confirms US is not paying locally employed staff at par with US recommended minimum daily wage all over the world ..

US double standards in applying laws , conventions , treaties to others without feeling obligations to follow themselves are world known ...

If you wish to be taken seriously ...you will cross beyond usual rhetoric of being tired of spoon feeding ...

Courtesy demands that you back up your assertion with proof !



we are protecting Our diplomat against kangaroo court in US !
and we will take it to its logical conclusion ....mark my words !

US will have to bow down to truth ...and will have to let our Diplomat walk free ....

Any one would rather face judicial system in US rather than India, except privileged Indians who can act without impunity in India.

The diplomat's fate is now in the US judicial system. India is not smart for not getting her the best representation at this time.

 

[Solomon2]

@Soloman2
you need to substantiate your assertions with proper reference , link etc
We would be thankful to you if you can do so.

link1, link2, link3.

In earlier threads I had posted links to US state department's self -indicting report which confirms US is not paying locally employed staff at par with US recommended minimum daily wage all over the world ..

By the Diplomatic and Consular Conventions, you can read that diplomats and consuls are required to follow local, not their own, laws when it comes to employing non-nationals at diplomatic and consular posts. Furthermore, diplomats and consuls employing non-nationals at diplomatic and consular posts are not obligated to pay social security and may be exempt from taxes.

 

[Indo-guy]

Any one would rather face judicial system in US rather than India, except privileged Indians who can act without impunity in India.

The diplomat's fate is now in the US judicial system. India is not smart for not getting her the best representation at this time.

Diplomat's fate has been taken from purview of Self-obsessed and hypocrite US judicial system ...

Have patience to watch our Diplomat walk free ....

Don't feel belittled by duplicity of US state department when it will join India to let Diplomat walk free ... !

 

[faithfulguy]

Diplomat's fate has been taken from purview of Self-obsessed and hypocrite US judicial system ...

Have patience to watch our Diplomat walk free ....

Don't feel belittled by duplicity of US state department when it will join India to let Diplomat walk free ... !

Ok. let me know when you wake up and we can talk.

 

[Indo-guy]

link1, link2, link3.

By the Diplomatic and Consular Conventions, you can read that diplomats and consuls are required to follow local, not their own, laws when it comes to employing non-nationals at diplomatic and consular posts. Furthermore, diplomats and consuls employing non-nationals at diplomatic and consular posts are not obligated to pay social security and may be exempt from taxes.

Duplicity and double standards of US administration is a never ending story ...
Indian maid on Official passport given by GOI ...being a GOI employee ..how she is being subjected to US laws ...???

Ok. let me know when you wake up and we can talk.

I am wide awake ...it is you who is in slumber and daydreaming all along ...

Can't blame you ....most blind patriotic fools like you are in same boat ...In permanent state of denial when it comes to US Hypocrisy ...and double standards !

 

[Solomon2]

Duplicity and double standards -

Pretended duplicity and double-standards is a never-ending story, it seems.

Your promised "thanks" are severely lacking.

Indian maid on Official passport given by GOI ...being a GOI employee ..how she is being subjected to US laws ...???

It's in the Convention. The consul has a personal domestic working outside the consulate, that worker is subject to U.S. protections and the consul must follow U.S. laws.

 

[Indo-guy]

Pretended duplicity and double-standards is a never-ending story, it seems.

It's in the Convention. The consul has a personal domestic working outside the consulate, that worker is subject to U.S. protections and the consul must follow U.S. laws.

The Indian maid is employee of GOI ...being in employment of official passport ...She is not subjected to US Jurisdiction ...
This is one of the contention by GOI in current issue ...

This is perfectly in accordance with Vienna convention which US has violated flagrantly ...by arresting and humiliating Indian diplomat .



The Devil can cite scriptures to further his cause ( whenever it suits him ... albeit selectively ) !!!

 

[Solomon2]

The Indian maid is employee of GOI ...being in employment of official passport ...She is not subjected to US Jurisdiction ...

Maid was on A-3 visa. She was subject to US Jurisdiction. Khobragade knew that because it's her job to know. The maid should have known that because A-3's are supposed to receive this pamphlet detailing worker protections.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Any one would rather face judicial system in US rather than India, except privileged Indians who can act without impunity in India.

The diplomat's fate is now in the US judicial system. India is not smart for not getting her the best representation at this time.

Yea that why Criminals who murder in other country roam free in US? Anderson etc.
India dose not need layer , US Judge and Govt will thrown the case. Don't worry about India. They know who to deal with US

We are not China whose Embassy bombed and then they took money to keep silence; )

 

[Indo-guy]

link1, link2, link3.

Thanks for the links ...

Nothing new ...and same usual US duplicity in selective quoting and selective application of clauses ...



“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

The Shakespeare quote fits well to US administration ....The Modern Merchants of Death !!!

Maid was on A-3 visa. She was subject to US Jurisdiction. Khobragade knew that because it's her job to know. The maid should have known that because A-3's are supposed to receive this pamphlet detailing worker protections.

If maid was issued A3 visa and without checking the full facts of maid's employment ....US authorities are equally guilty in issuing such visa .

US authorities have thus knowingly acted in this instance to trap and frame diplomat ...

US authorities are stupid enough expect the diplomat to pay 45,00 US $ when she herself earns 4800 US$ .

It is also obvious how US authorities either mis-read and misinterpreted visa application form or simply decided to ignore the facts ...

Mark my words US administration will eventually bite dust and will let our diplomat walk free ...

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Maid was on A-3 visa. She was subject to US Jurisdiction. Khobragade knew that because it's her job to know. The maid should have known that because A-3's are supposed to receive this pamphlet detailing worker protections.

US has all right to impose it Law , as in JAN India will impose its law and arrest Councillor and their Family Member under non -Bailable warrant under sec-420 for breaking Indians laws and let see how US started to cry like baby.

US days of thinking of themselves superior is over and if they think they brake other countries law and live is not over.

India already started asking US embassy employee and their family member working details . India know they don't pay Taxes as it required for councillor working family member to.

US also knows they all family and some councillor is likely to get arrested as soon as they provide data. thats why asked for extension to provide Data.

 

[Solomon2]

US has all right to impose it Law , as in JAN India will impose its law and arrest Councillor and their Family Member under non -Bailable warrant under sec-420 for braking Indians laws and let see how US started to cry like baby.

We'll see.

US days of thinking of themselves superior is over and if they think they brake other countries law and live is not over.

What about India's?

 

[Indo-guy]

Pretended duplicity and double-standards is a never-ending story, it seems.

A HYPOCRITICAL HEGEMON
Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role. Liberals tend to believe that other countries cooperate with the United States because American ideals are attractive and the U.S.-led international system is fair. Realists may be more cynical, yet if they think about Washington’s hypocrisy at all, they consider it irrelevant. For them, it is Washington’s cold, hard power, not its ideals, that encourages other countries to partner with the United States.
Of course, the United States is far from the only hypocrite in international politics. But the United States’ hypocrisy matters more than that of other countries. That’s because most of the world today lives within an order that the United States built, one that is both underwritten by U.S. power and legitimated by liberal ideas. American commitments to the rule of law, democracy, and free trade are embedded in the multilateral institutions that the country helped establish after World War II, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and later the World Trade Organization. Despite recent challenges to U.S. preeminence, from the Iraq war to the financial crisis, the international order remains an American one.
This system needs the lubricating oil of hypocrisy to keep its gears turning. To ensure that the world order continues to be seen as legitimate, U.S. officials must regularly promote and claim fealty to its core liberal principles; the United States cannot impose its hegemony through force alone. But as the recent leaks have shown, Washington is also unable to consistently abide by the values that it trumpets. This disconnect creates the risk that other states might decide that the U.S.-led order is fundamentally illegitimate.
Of course, the United States has gotten away with hypocrisy for some time now. It has long preached the virtues of nuclear nonproliferation, for example, and has coerced some states into abandoning their atomic ambitions. At the same time, it tacitly accepted Israel’s nuclearization and, in 2004, signed a formal deal affirming India’s right to civilian nuclear energy despite its having flouted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by acquiring nuclear weapons. In a similar vein, Washington talks a good game on democracy, yet it stood by as the Egyptian military overthrew an elected government in July, refusing to call a coup a coup. Then there’s the “war on terror”: Washington pushes foreign governments hard on human rights but claims sweeping exceptions for its own behavior when it feels its safety is threatened.
The reason the United States has until now suffered few consequences for such hypocrisy is that other states have a strong interest in turning a blind eye. Given how much they benefit from the global public goods Washington provides, they have little interest in calling the hegemon on its bad behavior. Public criticism risks pushing the U.S. government toward self-interested positions that would undermine the larger world order. Moreover, the United States can punish those who point out the inconsistency in its actions by downgrading trade relations or through other forms of direct retaliation. Allies thus usually air their concerns in private. Adversaries may point fingers, but few can convincingly occupy the moral high ground. Complaints by China and Russia hardly inspire admiration for their purer policies.
The ease with which the United States has been able to act inconsistently has bred complacency among its leaders. Since few countries ever point out the nakedness of U.S. hypocrisy, and since those that do can usually be ignored, American politicians have become desensitized to their country’s double standards. But thanks to Manning and Snowden, such double standards are getting harder and harder to ignore.

Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore | Hypocrisy and U.S. Foreign Policy | Foreign Affairs

We'll see.

What about India's?

For your information....we don't take moral high ground and go around the globe teaching virtues of our values ....

We are not bloated with air of superiority and supremacy that US suffers from ....

We are pretty busy with ourselves ....we have no time to police and preach the whole world !!!