Our men in Australia and China are both in breach of Article 42 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Malta’s ambassador to China, who has been there for decades already, in business.
The Maltese government has appointed Charles Muscat, who owns a men’s outfitters business in Canberra, Malta’s high commissioner in Australia.
It has appointed Clifford Borg Marks, who has business interests and a law practice in Beijing, Malta’s ambassador to China.
Article 42 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states:
A diplomatic agent shall not in the receiving State practise for personal profit any professional or commercial activity.
Of course, the two can claim to have transferred control of the business to third parties, but this is all highly irregular.
Borg Marks has been established in China for decades and has a Chinese wife and Chinese children. Muscat was raised in Australia and has lived there all his adult life.
His Mr Charles menswear shop was set up in the 1970s in Canberra.
Charles Muscat has dual Maltese/Australian citizenship. It is not clear what passports Borg Marks holds.
Article 8 of the same Convention states:
1. Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission should in principle be of the nationality of the sending State.
2. Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission may not be appointed from among persons having the nationality of the receiving State, except with the consent of that State which may be withdrawn at any time.
3. The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are not also nationals of the sending State.
15 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.corpsdiplomatique.cd/VIENNA_CONVENTION_1961_ON_DIPLOMATIC_RELATIONS.pdf
I am not following you.
If they have ceded their commercial activities to third parties, and if the receiving State has given its consent – what exactly is the problem?
[Daphne – You cannot be serious. Transferring their business interests on paper to a third party (even if they have done this) does not mean that these two have ceased to have vested interests in the receiving state. Their ENTIRE LIFE is there, their families, their livelihood, their property, everything. Also, the appointment is for three years, so the suggestion that they have given up their business/professional practice income permanently just to hold a diplomatic post for three years – and then what? – is not credible. However, I’m neither slow nor stupid and worked out from your first ‘subtle’ comment in favour of Borg Marks (about his book) that you seek to break a lance on his behalf. Whatever your interest is, do declare it.]
It is painful to see that this does not raise eyebrows here in Malta. I knew it was wrong without even having to refer to the Convention.
Typical amateur PL where laws amd protocol are just impediments to them doing as they please.
I suspect it also applies to the new Maltese High Commissioner for India.
Don’t forget our High Commissioner to India being an Australian.
Why is the PN still silent on these appointments?
Maybe because it pains them to remember a handful of rotten apples they had in place before retirement provided a good excuse to get rid of the worst, finally. Notably the one who double-billed. In-Nittien.
They are not silent. It has been reported on numerous occasions on Net TV and Simon Busuttil made reference to this (and a number of other shameful appointments) in his speech on Saturday.
As if Labour would care about diplomatic relations. Protocol is being changed and violated often.
Is the appointment unilateral or does the receiving country have to accept them? Presumably, these issues would be raised by the receiving country.
Joey Waiver?
Issa mhux gvern tal-majtezwell ?
It’s not the first time. http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/06/04/n10.html
Charles Muscat’s nomination as Malta’s High Commissioner in Canberra as reported in The Times of Malta:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130828/local/Australian-PL-man-is-High-Commissioner.483796
A very salient part of the report says: “According to sources, the Australian government was reluctant to agree to Mr Muscat’s appointment. “Since it’s not normal for Australian citizens to be appointed ambassadors representing other countries in their own country, the Australian government was very uneasy with this nomination,” they said.”
It is for the receiving country to accept or otherwise a nomination for an ambassadorial post, and I am sure that the foreign offices of the countries mentioned have experts on the application of the Vienna Convention.
What is being missed is that, even if an exception is made, at times reluctantly, the tour of duty of such an appointee is starting under a cloud. How this will benefit Malta I do not know.
Personal and party interests should never be above Malta’s interests.