Diplomatic Practice 101

Reynaldo D. Ponteras Jr. ABPO4 Consular and Diplomatic Practices 1. A. President addressed as Your Excellency. Excellency is an honorific style given to certain members of an organization or state. Usually, people addressed as excellency are heads of state, heads of government, governors, ambassadors, certain ecclesiastics, royalty, aristocracy, and military, and others holding equivalent rank. It is sometimes misinterpreted as a title of office in itself, but in fact is an honorific that precedes various titles both in speech and in writing. In reference to such an official, it takes the form His or Her Excellency. In most republican nations, the president is formally addressed as His Excellency; however in day-to-day conversation Mr. President remains the most common means of address. A style of office, or honorific, is a legal, official, or recognized title. A style, by tradition or law, precedes a reference to a person who holds a post or political office, and is sometimes used to refer to the office itself. An honorific can also be awarded to an individual in a personal capacity. In the United States, the form Excellency was commonly used for George Washington during his Presidency, but it began to fall out of use with his successor, and today has been replaced in direct address with the simple Mr. President or The Honorable. However, in many foreign countries and in United Nations protocol the President of the United States is usually referred to as His Excellency. Diplomatic correspondence to President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, as during the Trent Affair, for instance, frequently referred to him as His Excellency. The President of the United States is directly addressed as “Mr. President” and introduced as The President of the United States. In the Philippines, the official title of the president is "President of the Philippines" or "Ang Mahal na Pangulo" translated as The Beloved President. The honorific for the President of the Philippines is "Your Excellency" or "His Excellency", adopted from the title of the Governor-General of the Philippines during Spanish and American occupation. The honorific of the current Philippine President is "His Excellency, Benigno Aquino III. In several of the former Thirteen Colonies, the form Excellency is used for the governor. These include Georgia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. West Virginia likewise adopted the title His/Her Excellency from its parent state. The term is used frequently in the U.S. state of Georgia on the state governor's letterhead, the text of executive orders, any document that requires the governor's signature, and in formal settings. Nevertheless, Excellency is used frequently when introducing the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Governor of Virginia, and the Governor of North Carolina at formal events. The Governor of Michigan is traditionally afforded the courtesy title, though it has fallen out of use in recent years. Though ambassadors are traditionally accorded the

title elsewhere, the U.S. government does not use excellency for its diplomatic corps, preferring the honorable instead. B. President addressed as Mr. President. Addressing the president as Mr. President entails a sense of authority. And that includes power. Power is one of the most essential principles to attain foreign policy success. According to Powell, “Power is necessary because it is not possible to reason with every adversary that threatens a vital interest. Power has a reputation as well that walks before it into the future, affecting what others think about us. It is diplomacy that deploys power's reputation to achieve policy goals in the form of political influence. A wise diplomacy magnifies power's attractive quality by using power to benefit others as well as oneself."

The word president is derived from the Latin prae, "before" and sedere, "to sit." The one who presides over or "sits before" a gathering and ensures that debate is conducted according to the rules of order. Early examples are from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the founding President of the Royal Society William Brouncker in 1660. The most common modern usage is as the title of a head of state in a republic. According to history, the president of a Parlement in France evolved into a powerful magistrate, a member of the so-called noblesse de robe or the nobility of the gown, with considerable judicial as well as administrative authority. The name referred to his primary role of presiding over trials and other hearings. In the 17th and 18th centuries, seats in the Parlements, including presidencies, became effectively hereditary, since the holder of the office could ensure that it would pass to an heir by paying the crown a special tax known as the paulette. The post of “premier president”, however, could only be held by the King's nominees. The Parlements were abolished by the French Revolution. In modern France the chief judge of a court is known as its president. As a matter of fact, the word president was first used during the Commonwealth of England to denote the highest official in a government. After the abolition of the monarchy the English Council of State, whose members were elected by the House of Commons, became the executive government of the Commonwealth. The Council of State was the successor of the Privy Council, which had previously been headed by the Lord President; its successor the Council of State was also headed by a Lord President, the first of which was John Bradshaw. However, the Lord President alone was not head of state, because that office was vested in the council as a whole. A common style of address for presidents, "Mr. President," is borrowed from British Parliamentary tradition, in which the presiding Speaker of the House of Commons is referred to as "Mr. Speaker." Coincidentally, this usage resembles the older French custom of referring to the president of a parlement as "Monsieur le President", a form of address that in modern France applies to both the President of the Republic and to chief judges. Similarly, the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons is addressed by francophone parliamentarians as "Monsieur President".

The 1787 Constitution of the United States did not specify the manner of address for the chief executive. When George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States in 1789, he initially used the style, "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties," a title elaborated by the Joint Congressional Committee on titles over the course of a month. Critics charged that it smacked of monarchy. Washington consented to the demands of James Madison and the United States House of Representatives that the title be altered to "Mr. President." The first Vice President of the United States and the second President, John Adams, felt the title showed too little deference and lacked prestige, but he was unsuccessful in replacing it. One of the first issues that the United States Senate dealt with was the title of president. Vice President John Adams called the senators' attention to this pressing procedural matter. Most senators were averse to calling the president anything that resembled the titles of European monarchs, yet John Adams proceeded to recommend the title: "His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of their Liberties," an attempt to imitate the titles of the British monarch: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Prince-Elector of Hannover, Duke of Brunswick" and the French monarch: "By the Grace of God, Most Christian King of France and Navarre." Some senators favored "His Elective Majesty" or "His Excellency" (the latter of which would become the standard form of address for elected presidents of later republics). James Madison, a member of the House of Representatives, would have none of it. He declared that the pretentious European titles were ill suited for the "genius of the people" and "the nature of our Government." Washington became completely embarrassed with the topic and so the senators dropped it. From then on the president would simply be called the President of the United States or Mr. President, drawing a sharp distinction between American and European customs. Once the United States adopted the title of "President" for its republican Head of State, many other nations followed suit. Almost all of American nations that became independent from Spain in the early 1810s and 1820s chose a US-style president as their chief executive. Philippines once ruled under the Americans also copied and used the title until today. The only person entitled to the honorific "Excellency" is the President of the Philippines. The only way to introduce the President of the Philippines is, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the Philippines." The only way to toast the President is, "Ladies and Gentlemen, to the President of the Philippines," as he or she needs no further introduction by virtue of his or her position. 2. Prestige and Privileges of the Head of State. Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities. The concept of immunity began with ancient tribes. In order to exchange information, messengers were allowed to travel from tribe to tribe without fear of harm. They were protected even when they brought bad news. Today, immunity protects the channels of diplomatic communication by exempting diplomats from local jurisdiction so that they can perform their duties with freedom, independence, and security. Diplomatic immunity is not meant to benefit individuals personally; it is meant to ensure that foreign officials can do their jobs. Under the concept of reciprocity, diplomats assigned to any country in the world benefit equally from diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities for both their official and, to a large extent, their personal activities. The principle of diplomatic immunity is one of the oldest elements of foreign relations. Ancient Greek and Roman governments, for example, accorded special status to envoys, and the basic concept has evolved and endured until the present. As a matter of international law, diplomatic immunity was primarily based on custom and international practice until quite recently. In the period since World War II, a number of international conventions have been concluded. These conventions have formalized the customary rules and made their application more uniform. Notwithstanding the antiquity of the concept of diplomatic immunity, its purpose is oft en misunderstood by the citizens of this and other countries. Occasional abuses of diplomatic immunity, which are brought to public attention, have also served to prejudice public attitudes toward this practice. Dealing with the concept of immunity poses particular problems for law enforcement officers who, by virtue of their oath and training, are unaccustomed to granting special privileges or concessions to individuals who break the law. On the other hand, police officers who understand the importance of diplomatic immunity may be inclined to be overly generous in its application if they do not have a full understanding of its parameters. It is the purpose of this booklet to familiarize police officers with the general rules of diplomatic and consular immunity and to provide them with specific guidance regarding the handling of difficult situations. A sovereign who has been deposed by his people, or who has abdicated, and whose deposition or abdication has been recognized by other states, and a president of a republic whose term of office has expired, or who has been overthrown by a revolution, enjoy no immunities. Any privileges accorded to such personages during their residence in other countries must depend on the course which the authorities of those countries deem it expedient to adopt. Functions of a Diplomatic Mission      

Represent the home country in the host country Protect the interests of the home country and its citizens in the host country Negotiate with the government of the host country Monitor and report on conditions and developments in the commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific life of the host country Promote friendly relations between the host country and the home country Develop commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific relations between the host country and the home country.

It is a basic principle of international law that a sovereign state does not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign state. The foreign state is entitled to procedural immunity from the processes of the forum state. This immunity extends to both criminal and civil liability. State immunity probably grew from the historical immunity of the person of the monarch. In any event, such personal immunity of the Head of State persists to the present day: the Head of State is entitled to the same immunity as the state itself. The diplomatic representative of the foreign state in the forum state is also afforded the same immunity in recognition of the dignity of the state, which he represents. This immunity enjoyed by a Head of State in power and Ambassador

in post is a complete immunity attaching to the person of the Head of State or Ambassador and rendering him immune from all actions or prosecutions whether or not they relate to matters done for the benefit of that state. Such immunity is granted ratione personae. The immunities ratione personae or personal immunities, is predicated on the notion that, any activity of a head of state or government, or diplomatic agents2 or foreign minister must be immune from foreign jurisdiction. This is to avoid foreign state either infringing sovereign prerogatives of states or interfering with the official functions of a foreign state agent under the guise of dealing with an exclusively private act. Historically, this immunity stems from the time when heads of state were seen as personifying the state or the very embodiment of the state itself. The grant of sovereign immunity to a state in civil proceedings pursues the legitimate aim of complying with international law to promote comity and good relations between states through the respect of another’s sovereignty and that in consequence measures taken which reflect generally recognized rules of public international law on state immunity cannot in principle be regarded as imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to court as embodied in article 6. Just as the right of access to court is an inherent part of the fair trial guarantee in that article, so some restrictions on access must likewise be regarded as inherent, an example being those limitations generally accepted by the community of nations as part of the doctrine of state immunity. The Nature of State Immunity State immunity is a restriction on the jurisdiction of states founded on international Comity. It would be an affront to the dignity and sovereignty of a state for that state, or for an individual personifying that state, to be impleaded before the courts of another state. Immunity against such suit is because of immunity rationae personae. The dignity of a state may also be affronted if those who are or were its officials are impleaded in relation to the conduct of its affairs before the courts of another state. In those circumstances, the state can normally extend the cloak of its own immunity over those officials. It can be said that to implead those officials amounts, indirectly, to impleading the state. Where immunity is accorded in these circumstances, it is on the grounds of the subject matter of the litigation or ratione materiae. 3. The Foreign Service Officers Examinations Applicants who wish to be a Foreign Service Officer really go through a highly competitive written exam, oral assessment, and security investigation process. Although it involves hardships, like the way it conducts its examinations, it gives unique rewards to those who are going to pass the exam. Being a Foreign Service Officer is not an easy task. Actually, it is not simply a job, but a way to serve your country and reach your professional goals. The reason why Foreign Service Officer Examinations undergo a very difficult process is that diplomacy, as the bridge for political relationships really matters.

They work as front-line professionals representing the state. Their consular behavior and their political, social, and economic images reflect that of the state it represents. That is why, being a Foreign Service Officer, you have to be a master in the area of consular and diplomatic practices. You do not only deal your internal affairs, but you also play a very important role in the international arena. You must be more than equipped in the areas like consular, economics, management, political and public diplomacy, society, culture, economy, history, government, political systems, constitution, world history and geography, world political and social issues. In America, diplomacy is the first line of defense. Thus, hiring procedures are really strict when it comes to screening out the applicants. They are, indeed, the cream of the crops once they are already chosen. Hiring eligible and exact persons is one way of investing healthy diplomatic relations among countries. Foreign Service Officer Qualifications - 13 DIMENSIONS What qualities do we seek in FSO candidates? The successful candidate will demonstrate the following dimensions that reflect the skills, abilities, and personal qualities deemed essential to the work of the Foreign Service: • Composure. To stay calm, poised, and effective in stressful or difficult situations; to think on one's feet, adjusting quickly to changing situations; to maintain self-control. • Cultural Adaptability. To work and communicate effectively and harmoniously with persons of other cultures, value systems, political beliefs, and economic circumstances; to recognize and respect differences in new and different cultural environments. • Experience and Motivation. To demonstrate knowledge, skills or other attributes gained from previous experience of relevance to the Foreign Service; to articulate appropriate motivation for joining the Foreign Service. • Information Integration and Analysis. To absorb and retain complex information drawn from a variety of sources; to draw reasoned conclusions from analysis and synthesis of available information; to evaluate the importance, reliability, and usefulness of information; to remember details of a meeting or event without the benefit of notes. • Initiative and Leadership. To recognize and assume responsibility for work that needs to be done; to persist in the completion of a task; to influence significantly a group’s activity, direction, or opinion; to motivate others to participate in the activity one is leading. • Judgment. To discern what is appropriate, practical, and realistic in a given situation; to weigh relative merits of competing demands. • Objectivity and Integrity. To be fair and honest; to avoid deceit, favoritism, and discrimination; to present issues frankly and fully, without injecting subjective bias; to work without letting personal bias prejudice actions.

• Oral Communication. To speak fluently in a concise, grammatically correct, organized, precise, and persuasive manner; to convey nuances of meaning accurately; to use appropriate styles of communication to fit the audience and purpose. • Planning and Organizing. To prioritize and order tasks effectively, to employ a systematic approach to achieving objectives, to make appropriate use of limited resources. • Quantitative Analysis. To identify, compile, analyze, and draw correct conclusions from pertinent data; to recognize patterns or trends in numerical data; to perform simple mathematical operations. • Resourcefulness. To formulate creative alternatives or solutions to resolve problems, to show flexibility in response to unanticipated circumstances. • Working With Others. To interact in a constructive, cooperative, and harmonious manner; to work effectively as a team player; to establish positive relationships and gain the confidence of others; to use humor as appropriate. • Written Communication. To write concise, well organized, grammatically correct, effective and persuasive English in a limited amount of time.