Could countries still justify maintaining embassies abroad?

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

I was also raising the question of what about "nationals" or "citizens" of repressive countries who were also unjustly detained and unlikely to have anyone "in their corner" to go to bat for them except maybe groups such as Amnesty and PEN International and were likely to languish in prison for years and also face possible torture as well as about other foreign nationals whose countries and whose countries' embassies may be indifferent to their plight. I also am with those who believe the maxim about "When in Rome" as well.

[The Voice of Time]

So the only answer I can give you is, they're fucked up? Or is there something more you want to know about people sentenced badly by their government?

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

So those people may be just "in for a world of tough luck"

On edit, As unjust and iniquitous as it may seem.

[The Voice of Time]

So those people may be just "in for a world of tough luck"

On edit, As unjust and iniquitous as it may seem.

Well fate is not written, but basically yes. Though Amnesty and other organizations might go loud if their attention happens to reach the said individuals.

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

Back in the day, about three and a half decades ago when BOTH CANADA and THE UNITED STATES STILL had DIPLOMATIC CONTACT with IRAN, if there was a group of CANADIANS and AMERICANS who were all UNLAWFULLY DETAINED there, it may be all anyone could do to hope then Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor and then American Ambassador William Sullivan would have then been especially inclined to make a "tag team" effort to get everyone released in one fell swoop. The fact Iran at the time was in the throes of civil strife may have made things more complicated.

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

I'm sure whether or not an embassy ought to make a big "diplomatic kerfuffle" over someone's case may depend on different factors.


On edit, one factor being what the person was being detained for.

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

Another question could be whether or not it was fair to require people who either had no or few opportunities to travel abroad or even those who had sufficient opportunities to travel abroad but who never got themselves in any situation where they needed the services of their country's embassy to pay for such things as embassies.

[The Voice of Time]

Nobody pays for embassies. Except as part of the big universal package of a government's budget. But that package is supposed to be universal, as part of a stable and efficient government. Start splitting it up and you get an inefficient allocation of resources to where it is needed. It's not people's consumption of an embassy that decides whether it's purposeful, but whether it'll be need for it in the future ahead.

Diplomatic relations are long-term investments, and you want to be able to travel to a country and not have to worry about whether you've paid your yearly "embassy insurance"...

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

As far as the embassy question is concerned on second thought

(1) With respect to the particularly "repressive" countries, I am beginning to think if anyone who was wrongfully detained in "those countries" who had the good luck of being on the receiving end of some "diplomatic mercy mission" on the part of their country's consul general, ambassador or even current ( or more likely former) foreign minister / secretary of state, president or prime minister, I'm beginning to think "more power to them," but felt they especially had the obligation to bear witness to the human - rights abuses going on in "those countries" by being involved in groups like Amnesty International.

(2) On the question of those of us who either didn't have any or much opportunity to travel abroad or had sufficient opportunity to travel abroad but weren't in a position where we were likely to need the services of our country's consular office or embassy since we aren't the sort to "go looking for trouble," I had to admit it was doubtlessly good to know that if we ever did have the opportunity to travel abroad or on our next trip abroad a certain segment of our country's officialdom is looking out for us should we ever get into any situation especially where "we weren't intending to go looking for trouble but it unfortunately had a way of catching up with us," especially overseas.



By the way I was sure if you viewed yourself as a "cosmopolitan," an "internationalist," or a "citizen of the world or of planet Earth," you found yourself having to question all aspects of "nationalism" as in both the "bad" such as "needless wars," as well as even the "good," such as "how countries see it as both their legal and ethical obligation and prerogative to "look out for" their citizens regardless of whether or not they were within or even outside of the territory over which that country and its government holds jurisdiction."

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

I'm sure matters such as "jurisdictional issues" may limit the governments of certain countries to exclusively looking out for just their citizens, especially overseas. (For example the Canadian government could primarily go to bat for any Canadians who happen to be in Egypt and NOT any Egyptians who happened to be in Egypt.).

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

Nobody pays for embassies. Except as part of the big universal package of a government's budget. But that package is supposed to be universal, as part of a stable and efficient government. Start splitting it up and you get an inefficient allocation of resources to where it is needed. It's not people's consumption of an embassy that decides whether it's purposeful, but whether it'll be need for it in the future ahead.

Diplomatic relations are long-term investments, and you want to be able to travel to a country and not have to worry about whether you've paid your yearly "embassy insurance"...

I'm sure consular services is what you pay for every time you obtained a passport or you got it renewed.

[The Voice of Time]

By the way I was sure if you viewed yourself as a "cosmopolitan," an "internationalist," or a "citizen of the world or of planet Earth," you found yourself having to question all aspects of "nationalism" as in both the "bad" such as "needless wars," as well as even the "good," such as "how countries see it as both their legal and ethical obligation and prerogative to "look out for" their citizens regardless of whether or not they were within or even outside of the territory over which that country and its government holds jurisdiction."

Yeah... about that. As soon as you start doing that much more than now, what you end up with is a Cold War like political polarization of the world where countries stop trading in the same quantities, people stop being able to travel abroad as much, and generally everybody becomes hostile because of your moralizations... so I'm not sure if it's really worth it. Sure there could be more, but you have to consider the cost and not be reckless, or you'll just create more problems than you solve.

[The Voice of Time]

I'm sure consular services is what you pay for every time you obtained a passport or you got it renewed.

In a way, and in a way not. It helps fund many aspects of travelling abroad I guess. But the money doesn't go straight that way. In Norway, I think it's the local police which collects the money.

Passports are first of all identification certificates, and are used as a secure source to identify who you are and that you are not somebody who shouldn't be there or here or wherever. For instance, you can't enter the US if you have a criminal record, and for this reason passports help to make certain you are not given entrance to the US.

Some countries like France also has laws that say you must carry identification at all times (which is a totally bogus fuck-off law, but that's the case anyway... I hopefully had a passport while in France, though I hadn't planned to carry my id, I just happened to).

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

I find that on second thought, I have no issue with countries looking out for their citizens abroad provided they used primarily DIPLOMATIC means ( as in those very embassies and consular offices) and only used the MILITARY means as a last resort ( for example in the case of any country where "everything went to pot" so fast that the ONLY OPTION for any foreign nationals abroad in that country is a MILITARY EVACUATION .). I also wanted to raise the question about what about situations where "considerations of humanity and humanitarianism" ought to trump "considerations of nationality and citizenship?" (For example Rwanda when the genocide happened about 20 years ago.).

[Proud Cosmopolitan]

I'm sure consular services is what you pay for every time you obtained a passport or you got it renewed.

In a way, and in a way not. It helps fund many aspects of travelling abroad I guess. But the money doesn't go straight that way. In Norway, I think it's the local police which collects the money.

Passports are first of all identification certificates, and are used as a secure source to identify who you are and that you are not somebody who shouldn't be there or here or wherever. For instance, you can't enter the US if you have a criminal record, and for this reason passports help to make certain you are not given entrance to the US.

Some countries like France also has laws that say you must carry identification at all times (which is a totally bogus fuck-off law, but that's the case anyway... I hopefully had a passport while in France, though I hadn't planned to carry my id, I just happened to).

In Canada they charge you a fee for obtaining or renewing a passport and as far as I know at least part or possibly even all of the fee goes to funding Canadian Embassies and Consular Offices abroad.