U.S. declares Ecuadorian Ambassador to the U.S. Gallegos persona non grata

[News_Editor]

U.S. declares Ecuadorian Ambassador to the U.S. Gallegos persona non grata

2011-04-08 05:32:59 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- The United States Department of State on Thursday announced that the Ecuadorian Ambassador to the U.S., Luis Gallegos, was declared a persona non-grata in retaliation for similar action taken against U.S. ambassador to Ecuador Heather Hodges.

Gallegos will be required to depart the United States as soon as possible, as said by State Department acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner. Assistant Secretary Valenzuela of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs phoned Gallegos to inform him of the situation.

"The unjustified action of the Ecuadorian Government in declaring Ambassador Hodges persona non grata left us no other option than this reciprocal action," added Toner.

On Tuesday, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño said U.S. Ambassador Heather Hodges was declared "persona non grata and asked her to leave the country as soon as possible.

Hodges was asked to leave the country in response to a diplomatic cable alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorean police force. The cable, which was allegedly signed by her, was released Monday by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

In the 2009 diplomatic cable, the U.S. Embassy in Ecuador said that corruption is widespread and explained that police officer Jaime Hurtado Vaca, who resigned his post in May 2009, used his power to extort, facilitate human trafficking and to protect others involved in corruption.

The Ecuadorian embassy in the U.S. informed that Gallegos is currently preparing to return to the South American country. President Rafael Correa was also informed of the decision which was based on Article 9 of the Vienna Convention, similar to the action taken against Hodges.

Furthermore, Toner announced that the U.S. decided to suspend the bilateral dialogue which was scheduled to take place in June. The spokesman added that the U.S. government wants a positive relationship with Ecuador but the recent action of expelling Ambassador Hodges "is going to be taken into account."

"As far as practical impact, suspending the bilateral dialogue does impede the progress that we were hoping to make in these talks on a wide variety of issues, including trade and economic issues," added Toner.

In a statement, Ambassador Gallegos regretted the U.S. action against him and said he hoped that this issue could be solved as soon as possible so the two nations can enjoy a relationship based on mutual respect, benefit and cooperation.

"These are normal diplomatic procedures, so it is possible that we can maintain the level of cordial relations that we have had. We hope that in a few weeks we can reinitiate dialogue with the United States and move past this moment," concluded Minister Patiño.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-04-08

[TAWP]

So...the diplomat did nothing wrong but was declared persona non grata as retribution for the US having their diplomat declared it.

Atleast any pretensions of being on a higher horse is gone...

[Ijustwannateach]

I wonder if there was a more subtle request first to give the US a chance to save face, like requesting a change of ambassador. After all, you could hardly argue that once cables like that came out, that the ambassador could continue to serve in her post effectively.

[Jingthing]

This is pretty bizarre but not too worried about an Ecuador invasion.

[koheesti]

So, someone speaks out against Police corruption in a private diplomatic cable, Assange leaks it with malicious intent and two innocent diplomats end up losing their jobs and perhaps their careers. Way to go Julian! Azzhole. :realangry:

[bangkokeddy]

"The unjustified action of the Ecuadorian Government in declaring Ambassador Hodges persona non grata left us no other option than this reciprocal action," added Toner.

unjustified ...

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Article 9

1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the

sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is

persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such

case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions

with the mission.

...

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

[koheesti]

"The unjustified action of the Ecuadorian Government in declaring Ambassador Hodges persona non grata left us no other option than this reciprocal action," added Toner.

unjustified ...

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Article 9

1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the

sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is

persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such

case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions

with the mission.

...

http://untreaty.un.o...ns/9_1_1961.pdf

Just because they don't have to explain doesn't mean that it was justified.

[bangkokeddy]

I wonder if there was a more subtle request first to give the US a chance to save face, like requesting a change of ambassador. After all, you could hardly argue that once cables like that came out, that the ambassador could continue to serve in her post effectively.

Ecuadorian Foreign Mnister Ricardo Patino declined to call it an expulsion, though Hodges was effectively being kicked out of the country.

According to Patino, he met with Hodges over revelations in the leaked cable, which said Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa allegedly was aware of acts of corruption by the police high command.

Because the ambassador did not have a satisfactory response, the decision was made that she was not welcome in Ecuador, Patino said, according to Andes.

This act "is not against the government of the United States but against a diplomat who made serious statements," Patino said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-05/world/ecuador.us.ambassador_1_patino-corrupt-officer-cable?_s=PM:WORLD

[brahmburgers]

So, someone speaks out against Police corruption in a private diplomatic cable, Assange leaks it with malicious intent and two innocent diplomats end up losing their jobs and perhaps their careers. Way to go Julian! Azzhole. :realangry:

I agree. Assange is a grandstander who pretends to be for transparency - yet his actions contribute to careers being trashed and relationships between countries getting strained.

Diplomats, like politicians, have roles to play. Of course they can't be as frank in all scenarios as they'd like to be. That's why it's called diplomacy. My father was a career diplomat. When I was a kid and described something in rosier terms than it warranted (in order to not offend someone), my parents and their friends would smile and say, "well done for putting it so diplomatically."

The not-so-bright Ecuadorian Prez has shot himself in the foot. What would have been a smutty little short-term item (the leak) is now, thanks to him, blown up to become an int'l issue.

[chuckd]

Tit-for-tat has happened many times in diplomatic history.

We find Russian spies in their embassy and kick them out. The Russians retaliate by kicking out some of our spies.

They kick out our Ambassador, we kick out their's.

I am surprised some of you folks don't understand that.

You are right about that twit, Assange, though.

[bangkokeddy]

"The unjustified action of the Ecuadorian Government in declaring Ambassador Hodges persona non grata left us no other option than this reciprocal action," added Toner.

unjustified ...

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Article 9

1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the

sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is

persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such

case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions

with the mission.

...

http://untreaty.un.o...ns/9_1_1961.pdf

Just because they don't have to explain doesn't mean that it was justified.

To declare the ambassador to a persona non grata is an action based on Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

It can be done at any time and for whatever reason.

This international treaty is the legal basis in this case and both countries are signatories.

US State Department acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner called it reciprocal to an unjustified action.

Doing exactly the same as response is it really the only option left? And justified by what? reciprocal? Its like division by zero.

[chuckd]

"The unjustified action of the Ecuadorian Government in declaring Ambassador Hodges persona non grata left us no other option than this reciprocal action," added Toner.

unjustified ...

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Article 9

1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the

sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is

persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such

case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions

with the mission.

...

http://untreaty.un.o...ns/9_1_1961.pdf

Just because they don't have to explain doesn't mean that it was justified.

To declare the ambassador to a persona non grata is an action based on Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

It can be done at any time and for whatever reason.

This international treaty is the legal basis in this case and both countries are signatories.

US State Department acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner called it reciprocal to an unjustified action.

Doing exactly the same as response is it really the only option left? And justified by what? reciprocal? Its like division by zero.

Why don't you take it up with the State Department. I don't really think many of us really care if it was justified or not.

I guess it wasn't the only option, but it was the option our State Department took.

Case closed.

[Ulysses G.]

To declare the ambassador to a persona non grata is an action based on Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

It can be done at any time and for whatever reason.

That works TWO WAYS!

[EnSvenskTiger]

Good!

Bevare Ecuador, they are comming.......they... are... comming!

Tiger

[bangkokeddy]

Why don't you take it up with the State Department. I don't really think many of us really care if it was justified or not.

I guess it wasn't the only option, but it was the option our State Department took.

Case closed.

Who are the "many of us"? And why you start to argue if you don't really care at all?

I am surprised about the victory claims and so_nam_na comments here (no matter for which side). And putting the blame on wikileaks is really silly.

The persona non grata thing is part of the Vienna Convention and yes tit for tat happened quite a few time in history. Its actually a failure and collapse of diplomacy. Its the job of the diplomats to avoid such situations and to fix it. Good diplomats avoid noisy things and don't act like on steroids.

The State Department is under pressure, daily, since month just waiting for the next cable leak release that could create a situation.

The State department admit that there was a theft of their documents, they never claimed that the published cables are fake or modified or falsified or not from them. And nobody else, except a few who think wikileaks is an CIA operation, doubt the authenticity of the cables.

But when it comes to certain documents, a single cable, containing something more then usual gossip ambassadors report to the headquarter. Some rumors or bitching that may upset someone else or are incredible awkward for the author and makes him look like a dumb fool or containing really some hot top secret stuff or whatever. ... In such a case the State Department will just say: "We cannot confirm the authenticity of these documents and we cannot comment on supposedly leaked classified information," or "I can’t comment on the contents of allegedly classified documents nor can we vouch for their authenticity."

A very similar statement and no further explanation was probably all what ex-U.S. ambassador Heather Hodges could give to the Ecuadorian FM when he met her to have a talk about that leaked cable. That was not a satisfactory response in the eyes of the Ecuadorians. Poof!. PNG.

The State Department or the ambassador cannot say sorry or express regret or give any explanation that would maybe satisfy the Ecuadorians. Thats not their strategy. They don't want give the criminals at wikileaks a success and just hope that all others act diplomatic enough to ignore the leaks and don't cause a scene over it.

To declare the Ecuadorian Ambassador to the US to a PNG, was probably partly motivated by retaliation and but mostly a signal to all those who might wanna get upset in future and demand a satisfactory response.

In case that the Ecuadorian cable leak would have been just an isolated and single incident the US might had not used the tit-for-tat hammer.

"Don't mention the war wikileaks" and give our Ambassadors time to resign - that would have been a diplomatic solution. Nothing what the US can demand or insist on, that will fail. But could work out when it comes with a couple of 'PLEEAASE' and signs of respect.

[chuckd]

BKKeddy:

Do you feel better now? A little rant always did me some good in releasing pent up emotions.