Ransoming countrymen of the represented country is literally one of the oldest diplomatic functions on earth and is a big part of why embassies were established in the first place.
Your own source literally defines the term “diplomatic mission” as:
The basic role of a diplomatic mission is to represent and safeguard the interests of the home country and its citizens in the host country
So no, looking after the citizens of the represented country is NOT “secondary to the diplomatic mission” it IS the diplomatic mission.
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.
deleted by creator
Ransoming countrymen of the represented country is literally one of the oldest diplomatic functions on earth and is a big part of why embassies were established in the first place.
Your own source literally defines the term “diplomatic mission” as:
So no, looking after the citizens of the represented country is NOT “secondary to the diplomatic mission” it IS the diplomatic mission.
deleted by creator
Shame that’s not what you said when I replied to you and then repeated several times in the course of this discussion.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I said one of.
deleted by creator
Got it. Fair enough.