30April2010, my response to 'icemanV'

Quote:

Originally Posted by BicCherry, 27-04-2010, 05:29 AM I think that the key pt here is that Romania is arguing based upon Article 31(1) and (4) of the VCDR, for which I believe that they are amply correct at this point of time. A31.1 states: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..." A31.4 states: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."... ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noobcake, 27-04-2010, 03:03 PM Perhaps, Singapore MFA is too pushy and bossy in their approach with Romania. Respect goes both way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by icemanV (27-04-2010, 04:05 PM ) Enough pressure on MFA? Why don't you tell that to the parents, wife and relatives of the dead. To lick boots on the expense of the dead. Who can go lower than that?

Hi 'icemanV', whilst I'm inclined to agree with 'Noobcake'- that "(SG) MFA is too pushy and bossy in their approach"- Romanian MFA isn't without fault either. All in, I was just shocked and saddened that SG actually decided to put Ionescu on the Interpol wanted list, which I felt was just an unnecessary knee jerk reaction, apt to cause surprise and offense to our other relations; and as I had earlier described in my last response- to me a confirmation that even after almost 43 years of mutual Diplomatic relations, our mutual relations haven't much improved . Other then warning the world of Ionescu's misdeeds, I felt that we were simply using the wrong forum in our 'desperate' quest for Justice- one that despite our 'connections', promptly 'backfired' as the case currently turns out.
This is not to say that Singapore's use of Article 39.2 is without recourse, however, I feel that this is certainly not yet the time for it, and as is evidently the case currently, the use of A39.2 has made clowns out of both of us, with SG now 'taunting' Romanian Ambassador Neagu with difficult and unnecessary questions, "... He was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions.", "The ambassador failed to answer the question".

Needless to say, I accept A31.4 (as a/m appended) to be the mutually agreed and pre-determined standing agreement by which such incursions should be resolved; in other words, Ionescu's persecution for offenses here ought be by the Romanian Justice system.

Now everyone is watching the outcome of this case and how these 2 relatively 'young' countries resolve their 'problem', keeping in mind the internationally accepted sanctity of diplomatic relations.

To deviate from pre-agreed contract requires mutual consent and it is this deviation by both parties that I view with suspicion and scorn.

I apologize for any misunderstanding caused thus far if you were given to thinking that I might be excessively biased towards Romanian MFA, however, to list a diplomat through unilateral decision on the Interpol wanted list is quite an outlandish and destabilizing motion don't you think?

To grant another sovereign's representatives diplomatic status under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a sign of respect for the diplomat and by proxy, the sovereign he represents- that the diplomat's home rule of law be considered as acceptable, at least for the regulation and thus 'convenience' of the host endorsed diplomats- such is the privilege enjoyed by 'diplomats', historically an important profession integral in its contribution to the good relations between two countries- premised upon the ideal that negotiations and dealings between sovereigns should be conducted on 'equal' terms.
Singapore having agreed to the 'lofty' terms of the VCDR without overt exception, is thus now ill advised to nit-pick over the terms of the VCDR but abide graciously with it in its full spirit and form, with Romania expected to respond in its part by charging Ionescu for his crimes. With article 31(4) predefining the jurisdiction under which persecution should occur as that of the Romanian Justice System.

Romania is our guest in this case, as honorable host, we are obliged to commence our negotiations granting them some allowance, without undue pressure, to perform their due response in abidance to a mutual pre-agreed 'contract'- and I repeat, prosecute Ionescu for his crimes under Romanian law. Disregard for such (like prematurely ratting to the Interpol) is a definite deviation from a mutually pre-agreed 'contract' and implies disrespect for the mutual ideals by which the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was acceded to; not to mention, Singapore's implicit/ explicit endorsement of Ionescu's activities through failure by Article 9(1), to at 'pleasure', expel Ionescu prior to the accident occurring, thus implicitly 'permitting' his less then honorable behaviors as described thus far.
A9(1) states: "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. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State."

Given to the fact that Article 2, the first condition under the VCDR states: "The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent."
It is thus without doubt, that the resolution of the a/m said problem ought be resolved by the pre-existing mutual agreement, and not by unilateral dissent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trouser Press I think it's quite clear that the guy who keeps writing walls of words pretty much is on the side of Romania and has an amazing faith in their competency. He's either a local puff with a Romanian boyfriend or has some motivation behind loving a country which has no impact on Singapore apart from the export of some seriously crap diplomats. He has to be mildly puffy to have his "Romania First" policy, and barely mention the vics, suffice to say he wants them to have "compensation". ...

Ditto the response above...
Will respond to questions, not taunting dear.

References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- INTERPOL Notices & Diffusions
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
- [MyPaper 23Feb2010] Let Romania deal with diplomat
- "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations between the embassies according to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."(8April2010: Bucharestherald.ro) International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu
- CNA29April2010: "... was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions."- 'Romanian ambassador says full legal action will be taken against Ionescu if needed'
=================================
This post is posted to the following forums for discussion:
A1forum:
30April2010: Ex-envoy (Doctor of Dispicable Crimes) Ionescu not protected by immunity, with reference note at:
30April2010: Romanian Embassy Diplomatic Car Hit & Run
HWZ:
30April2010: Romanian diplomat Ionescu was the driver in fatal hit-and-run; with associations at:
30April2010:Possible consequences on Singapore-Romania relations: analysts
SG forums:
30April2010: Romanian diplomat's car in hit-and-run: cover up?
SBoy:
30April2010: ROMANIA Tells Singapore Garment To "** **** ********". And They Are Correct!

CNA:
30April2010: Interpol Red Notice of arrest against Silviu Ionescu suspen