)
Below is the transcript of the US State Department's Deputy spokesperson, Marie Harf's daily briefing, dated 17 December 2013. You can judge for yourself what the US is trying to say about the Devyani Khobragade episode:
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say on the steps announced by Indian Government today on the – withdrawing some of the consular facilities provided to Indian diplomats inside – U.S. diplomats in India and withdrawing the security parameters outside the embassy in opposition to the steps – arrest of Indian diplomats in New York?
MS. HARF: Well, a couple points on this. I think you probably saw the statement that I put out just before coming out here, that the U.S. and India enjoy a broad and deep friendship, and this isolated episode is not in any way indicative of the close and respectful ties that we share and will continue to share. We have conveyed at high levels to the Government of India our expectations that India will continue to fulfill all of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and Vienna Convention – on Consular Relations, excuse me.
Obviously, the safety and security of our diplomats and consular officers in the field is a top priority. We’ll continue to work with India to ensure that all of our diplomats and consular officers are being afforded full rights and protections. Also, of course, safety and security of our facilities as well is something we take very seriously, and we’ll keep working with the Indians on that.
QUESTION: Why wasn’t that in the statement?
MS. HARF: Because it was a short statement and I knew I’d get lots of questions on it in the briefing. I mean, there’s – I have a lot of information on this we can talk about in the briefing.
QUESTION: -- I mean, this statement was in direct response to what obviously is India’s concern and problems with the way that their diplomats were treated. And the statement --
MS. HARF: Diplomat.
QUESTION: The diplomat is treated. And the statement was worded in a way that indicates that you don’t necessarily think that the law – that the New York law enforcement personnel handled this in the best way.
MS. HARF: I don’t think --
QUESTION: Considering that you said that Diplomatic Security acted according to procedures, and clearly, you’re making an effort to not let this affect the relationship with --
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly don’t want it to affect the relationship, and it’s just a fact that Diplomatic Security only has part of this – part of the situation. We understand there are sensitive issues involved here. For example, the State Department isn’t the entity that conducts the intake procedure at the federal courthouse. That’s the U.S. Marshals. It’s just a fact that that’s not something I can speak to. They’d have to speak to their part of the process.
But again, we don’t want this to negatively impact our bilateral relationship, and we’ll keep talking it with – about it with them on the ground and here.
QUESTION: -- that you expect them to uphold the Vienna Convention – is that a reference to the fact that Indian police today removed security barriers around the Embassy?
MS. HARF: Certainly part of it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Certainly part of it.
QUESTION: So did you see the Indian police removing those security barriers as a reflection of their unhappiness at the treatment of their diplomat in New York?
MS. HARF: I’d let them speak for what the reasoning was behind it, certainly.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you feel that it has impaired the security of the Embassy?
MS. HARF: I don’t think I’d go that far. Obviously, we don’t comment on our specific security posture. And we take security very seriously, and we will continue to have conversations with the Indian Government to make sure our facilities are properly secured. I don’t have anything additional than that. I have no indication at this point that it has, and certainly it shouldn’t, and we don’t want it to.
QUESTION: And who conveyed that message, and to whom?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. So a couple of folks have spoken on each side. Under Secretary Sherman spoke with the charge at the Indian Embassy on – I believe last week, late last week, Friday evening. Assistant Secretary spoke with officials at the ministry of external affairs several times, and Ambassador Powell has spoken on the ground with the ministry of external affairs several times on this issue as well.
QUESTION: Marie, have you actually asked for them to rescind these measures that they took today, particularly the ones about the security barriers?
MS. HARF: I can double-check and see if we have more details about the diplomatic conversations. We’ve been very clear that they need to uphold all of their obligations under the Vienna Convention, and in terms of security, we’ll keep working with them on that as well. Again, our focus here is on moving the bilateral relationship forward, that this one isolated episode not impact the bilateral relationship.
QUESTION: Do you feel that measures that were taken were actually proportionate to what happened to the deputy general consul in New York last week?
MS. HARF: Again, I am not going to get into specifics about what may or may not have been done. Thus far, all indications are that appropriate procedures were followed. But nonetheless – and my statement pointed to this this morning – we understand this is a very sensitive issue and we’re continuing to review exactly what transpired. And I would point out again that the State Department wasn’t the only entity involved here, so I would point folks to the U.S. Marshals, who obviously play a role in this as well.
QUESTION: But I think my question was more – are the measures, were the measures taken by the Indian – Indians’ government proportionate to what --
MS. HARF: Oh, I see. Measures by the Indian Government.
QUESTION: Indian Government, yes.
MS. HARF: Proportionate to what?
QUESTION: To the arrest in New York of a deputy consul general.
MS. HARF: Well, again, this limited episode with somebody who was charged with a crime is a separate and isolated incident. We believe that we need to move forward, they need to keep with – between our two countries with security, with diplomatic, all of the consular issues that I talked about with the Vienna Convention. I just don’t think that they necessarily should be tied together in that way. Obviously, we know this is a sensitive issue though, and that’s why we’re looking at what transpired and talking to the Indians about it directly.
QUESTION: So it was over the top. It was over the top then?
MS. HARF: I’m not going to use those words. I’m just saying that we have said privately to the Indians and publicly I’m now saying that they need to uphold their obligations going forward, and we’ll keep having the discussion.
QUESTION: So just to put a fine point on it, if you’re saying that they shouldn’t be linked and then you’re saying that they shouldn’t take actions against your diplomats in a response to one of their diplomats being arrested, even if it was handled possibly in an improper way?
QUESTION: Even if they have concerns with the way she was treated, it sounds like you’re saying, just to put a fine point on it, that the Indian Government should not take punitive measures against your diplomats in response to an incident that they feel one of their diplomats was (inaudible).
MS. HARF: Certainly, we have called on them to uphold all of their obligations under the Vienna Convention, everything that they are obligated to do and according our diplomats rights and all of the things that go under the Vienna Convention.
QUESTION: Because sometimes if there’s an incident with a diplomat of one country, for instance, if you ask a diplomat to leave a country or they’re PNG’d or something, the other state will take reciprocal measures. But your --
MS. HARF: This is a very different situation. This isn’t – this is an isolated episode, obviously, of somebody who has been charged with a crime. And again, isolated episode that doesn’t involve her daily duties, her responsibilities in New York, and I think I’d probably leave it at that.
QUESTION: Now could you talk – you talked a little bit about it, but you said you would get us some more answers on this diplomat’s – this deputy consul general’s diplomatic status. Could you expand on that a little bit?
MS. HARF: Well, I don’t think I said I’d get on theirs specifically. I said there are different kinds of immunity – diplomatic immunity, consular immunity, I think there are a couple of other kinds. I have asked our folks to sort of lay out very explicitly, hopefully to be released as a TQ, exactly what all of those mean. But generally speaking, right, diplomatic immunity applies sort of across the board – again, this is a very general and the lawyers are probably going to be mad at me – but consular immunity only applies to things done in the actual functions of one’s job. And this just isn’t for diplomats in the U.S., of course; it’s for our diplomats overseas as well.
QUESTION: Now, even if a diplomat doesn’t have diplomatic immunity or consular immunity --
QUESTION: What’s the difference, by the way, between diplomatic immunity and consular immunity. I don’t understand that.
MS. HARF: Well, diplomatic immunity applies to everything. Consular immunity only applies to official functions in – that one performs in the duty of their job.
QUESTION: So is this person – does this person enjoy diplomatic immunity?
MS. HARF: Consular immunity.
QUESTION: Why don’t they enjoy diplomatic immunity, given that they are a diplomat?
MS. HARF: Well, she’s the consul general at a consulate.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: I can double-check the exact specifics for who falls under what. I know it’s different everywhere. And again, this applies to our folks overseas as well.
QUESTION: So – but that would be good to get clear.
MS. HARF: I’m trying to get a little more clarity from our folks. It’s a little complicated --
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. HARF: -- but about who falls into what is different in every country, and so who falls into what category.
QUESTION: Okay, so her immunity as you understand it pertains solely to --
MS. HARF: Official functions.
QUESTION: -- her official functions.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay. So she’s not immune if she is alleged to have committed a crime --
MS. HARF: Visa fraud, for example.
QUESTION: Even if she doesn’t – she only enjoys this limited consular immunity in function to her job, do you believe that a diplomat of that nature should receive kind of special treatment or extra courtesies in terms of the way that they’re treated by law enforcement in the process of an arrest?
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly afford people what they’re entitled to under the Vienna Convention. And again, I’ve asked our experts on this to pull a little bit more about what that means. I’m not sure it’s entirely clear about the definition of some of these words, whether it’s courtesies or others, so I’ve asked to get a little more information. But, in general, we obviously adhere to that. And again, in this case it doesn’t – there are no indications that anything but appropriate measures were followed. But we do know this is sensitive. We are looking into it for exactly that reason, to see exactly what transpired. Again, State Department only has part of it, so we can only speak for part of it. But we’re looking at what happened to see.
QUESTION: Was she strip-searched? Was she strip searched? Just a simple yes or no.
MS. HARF: Well, again, I would remind you that I think those allegations have come up as part of the intake – that’s been an allegation that was possibly part of the intake procedure, which, of course, the State Department does not conduct. That’s the U.S. Marshals who do that. I would refer you – I can’t speak for them what may or may not have happened.
QUESTION: Do you know if she was strip searched?
MS. HARF: Again, I can’t speak for the U.S. Marshals.
QUESTION: I’m not asking you to speak for them. I’m asking if you know whether she was strip searched.
MS. HARF: I can’t speak --
QUESTION: You’re doing an investigation into this, right?
MS. HARF: I wouldn’t use the term “investigation.” We’re looking at what transpired and what we --
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re looking into what happened. So we won’t use the word --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. And if we have anything to announce about the details of that we will.
QUESTION: -- is that she has said to have been strip searched. The question is whether you know – I mean, I can understand it would be embarrassing to admit it, but it’s also just a factual matter. And if --
MS. HARF: I don’t speak for other government agencies, actually. I speak for the State Department, and that allegation --
QUESTION: And the State Department is not aware of whether or not she was strip-searched? Because the State Department presumably wants to know whether or not she was strip-searched so that it can deal --
MS. HARF: Again, we’re looking --
QUESTION: Are you looking into it because the Indians are upset about it and they have concerns about it? Or did what you hear about the way she was treated give you alarm and that you want to look into it? Is it because of the Indian sensitivity or you heard this and was like, hey, that may not be --
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly know it’s a very sensitive issue in India, and we take that very seriously because we value the bilateral relationship so much, certainly. And that’s why we’re trying to gather more of the facts of --
QUESTION: Because the Indians are upset?
MS. HARF: For a host of issues, honestly, because we know it’s a sensitive issue in India. We value the relationship. There are a lot of rumors out there about what may or may not happen, and so we think it’s important to get all the facts.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can you clarify three points? First is you’ve been saying that all the procedures were followed. What is the official procedure for a violation like this? Because you said that she was handed over to the Marshals. So before that, that means the State Department came to know about it. So what is the procedure that was followed?
MS. HARF: Well, in accordance with – I think this might be what your question is getting at – the Department’s policy of advising foreign missions of allegations made involving a member of a mission or a family member, the State Department advised the Embassy of the Republic of India in writing in September of allegations of abuse made by an Indian national against the deputy consul general of India in New York. I’m sorry, I called her the consul general earlier. I mispronounced her title. So we notified them in writing in September. Obviously, we play a role in this, but the Department of Justice also obviously handles the legal aspect of it as well.
QUESTION: So you say that it was completely followed – the procedure?
MS. HARF: Again, there are no indications at this point that it wasn’t, but this is the reason we’re looking at all the facts because we do know this is an important issue. It’s a sensitive issue, and we want to make sure we have all the facts so we can focus on moving the relationship forward and not on this isolated episode.
QUESTION: And you have talked about the security issue of the U.S. diplomats. There are a host of other points, like for example, Indian Government has asked for an unconditional apology and they have asked for the – from the embassy and the consulate, U.S. embassy and consulate, details of the salaries of the domestic help. And they have asked for a stoppage of import clearance for U.S. embassy’s food and liquor. Airport passes for the U.S. consulates and embassies has been – have been withdrawn. They have been asked to return their IDs, which are very important, and there is a complete blanket refusal, a ban to meet any U.S. delegation – as you saw, the Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi, and Ms. Kumar – all these people. And all ministers have been asked not to meet them. What is your take on all this?
MS. HARF: Yeah, so I can confirm that we have received several demarches from the Government of India, I think speaking to some of these issues. I’m not going to get into the substance of those private diplomatic conversation. This is what I was speaking to at the beginning, though – some of these diplomatic privileges that you’re talking about. We’ve conveyed, again, at high levels, to the Government of India our expectations that India --
QUESTION: Okay. So you are confirming that you have fulfilled your obligation towards this diplomat?
MS. HARF: Again, we’re taking a look at what happened. I have no indications that we didn’t, but we want to take a look at it because we know it’s important and we want to address it directly with the Indian Government.
QUESTION: In September, you notified Indian Government about it.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. In writing.
QUESTION: But Indian Government says they have also notified the U.S. Government State Department about a case against the maid in a non-available warrant against the maid issued by Delhi high court and has asked the U.S. to deport her back to India. When was that notified --
MS. HARF: I’m not aware of that. I’m happy to check on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Yep. On this still?
QUESTION: Can we change topics?
QUESTION: No, I’ve got one more. Sorry. It was mentioned by my colleague that one of the issues was the withdrawal of all ID cards issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. How is that going to affect the work that your diplomats do on the ground in India?
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly don’t want any of the measures that he outlined to affect our work on the ground in India because it’s such an important relationship. We work together on so many important issues. And that’s why we’ll keep talking to the government about how to move forward.
QUESTION: What are they actually used for on a day-to-day basis?
MS. HARF: I can double-check. I can double-check.
QUESTION: Have they actually taken those measures that he described, or you don’t know?
MS. HARF: I’m not sure. I’ll double-check. I’ll double-check with --
QUESTION: Is it true that if the diplomat doesn’t have that ID the diplomat can be arrested by the local police or --
MS. HARF: I’ll check. I’ll check. I don’t know.
