Mexico, Israel, the U.S. and Vienna Conventions
By Allan Wall
With all the news coverage of the Mexican post-election
contention and the ongoing Middle East crises, a recent diplomatic tiff between Israel and Mexico was mostly ignored. But
it raises some interesting questions.
It all began when an ad critical of Israel, signed
by prominent Mexican intellectuals and magnates, appeared in the Mexican media.
David Dadonn, Israeli ambassador to Mexico, attacked
it, asserting that, by placing all the blame on Israel, the statement encouraged terrorism.
For this Dadonn was officially rebuked by the Mexican
Foreign Ministry, the SRE, for overstepping his bounds as a diplomat.
Citing article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, SRE spokesman Joel Hernandez said that “The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations establishes the limits
for the conduct of diplomatic representatives … every diplomatic agent must conduct himself with respect to the laws
and regulations of the host nation….”
It’s a well-known fact that the Mexican government
is zealous to defend its sovereignty. There’s nothing wrong with that.
But the conduct of much Mexican diplomatic activity
in the United States often crosses the line, going far beyond anything this Israeli ambassador in Mexico ever did.
According to Mexican Foreign Minister Ernesto Derbez,
“Through our network of 45 consulates, we reinforce attention to the needs of our fellow Mexicans in the United States,
regardless of their legal or migratory status….”
Certainly you can’t fault Mexican diplomats
for defending Mexican citizens. However, they quite frequently overstep their
legitimate diplomatic functions to meddle in internal U.S. politics, openly working to impact U.S. legislation.
In California, Mexican consuls have actually met
with that state’s Latino legislators to discuss immigration-related legislation.
As well, Derbez has met with a California legislator to discuss the granting of driver’s licenses to illegal
immigrants.
In several states, including California, Colorado
and Georgia, Mexican diplomats have spoken out against state and local legislation related to immigration. This seems to be a clear violation of the Vienna Convention that Mexican invoked in its dispute with Israel.
Mexican officials also appear to claim jurisdiction
over United States citizens of Mexican ancestry.
For example, when Arizona passed its Proposition
200, strongly opposed by Mexico, 40 percent of Arizonans of Mexican ancestry voted in favor of the measure. Foreign Minister
Derbez lamented this fact, stating that “we have to work to educate even our
own Mexican-Americans about why it is important that these proposals are not accepted," thus claiming Mexican jurisdiction
over Americans of Mexican ancestry.
Speaking in Chicago, President Vicente Fox said, “We are Mexicans that
live in our territories and we are Mexicans that live in other territories … we are 120 million people that live together
and are working to construct a nation.”
Such claims made by Mexican officials pose some
problematic questions about the future of U.S. citizenship, immigration and relations between the United States and Mexico.
Besides the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
there is also another international convention, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Article 36 of that treaty stipulates “if he (a Mexican in the U.S., for example) so requests, the competent authorities
of the receiving State (the U.S. in this case) shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State (Mexico
in this case) if … a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or custody pending trial or is detained
in any other manner…. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned
without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph….”
Mexico’s complaint with the United States
is when U.S. authorities arrest a Mexican citizen but don’t speedily inform Mexican consulates of the person’s
arrest. The practical question is, if authorities fail to do so can evidence
be suppressed or a case reopened?
Mexico and Germany went to the International
Court of Justice (the Hague) and argued that, without speedy notification, the case of an arrested foreigner could be reopened.
Afterwards, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this
interpretation, ruling that the failure to inform the consulate does not require the suppression of evidence or the reopening
of a case.
The area covered by these two Vienna conventions
is one in which competing legal principles and conflicting interests continue to clash.
And given current mass immigration from Mexico to the U.S., we can expect these and other issues to continue to be
debated.
Allan Wall, a MexiData.info columnist, recently
returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. He currently resides in Mexico, where he
has lived since 1991. He can be reached
via e-mail at allan39@prodigy.net.mx.
