I meant is it’s not a service I’d depend on in a regional crisis as they can and will deprioritse it. It is not the main mission as the following passage to that sentence shows:
The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in representing the sending State in the receiving State; protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the receiving State; ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.[18]
It’s not even rare for embassies outside of the first world’s to be openly hostile or outright useless to their own citizens in a pinch during times of peace.
Except that for Americans specifically, relying on the embassy for support and evacuation when a regional crisis arises has been a safe bet for nearly 100 years.
Certainly in the post-WWII era, if you followed the advice of the state department on not traveling to really dangerous places, and didn’t do something to get yourself into trouble (like getting involved in crimes), the US would use considerable resources to ensure an American citizen’s safe passage home. In fact, the hostility to Iran has some basis in the fact that Iran took over the American embassy during the revolution in 1978 and held the personnel hostage, a pretty blatant rejection of standard diplomatic norms. From a legal standpoint that was effectively an invasion of the US because an embassy is sovereign territory.
So regardless of your wording, this represents a pretty basic shift away from previous norms, especially given that the crisis people are fleeing is entirely a creation of the US government.
Shame that’s not what you said when I replied to you and then repeated several times in the course of this discussion.
I meant is it’s not a service I’d depend on in a regional crisis as they can and will deprioritse it. It is not the main mission as the following passage to that sentence shows:
It’s not even rare for embassies outside of the first world’s to be openly hostile or outright useless to their own citizens in a pinch during times of peace.
Except that for Americans specifically, relying on the embassy for support and evacuation when a regional crisis arises has been a safe bet for nearly 100 years.
Certainly in the post-WWII era, if you followed the advice of the state department on not traveling to really dangerous places, and didn’t do something to get yourself into trouble (like getting involved in crimes), the US would use considerable resources to ensure an American citizen’s safe passage home. In fact, the hostility to Iran has some basis in the fact that Iran took over the American embassy during the revolution in 1978 and held the personnel hostage, a pretty blatant rejection of standard diplomatic norms. From a legal standpoint that was effectively an invasion of the US because an embassy is sovereign territory.
So regardless of your wording, this represents a pretty basic shift away from previous norms, especially given that the crisis people are fleeing is entirely a creation of the US government.
I totally agree with you here, this is the important, intended subtext I left out. We just are not used to not having a monopoly on political capital.