Viewing cable 05MONTREAL323, CANADA DOWNGRADES ACCEPTANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MONTREAL 000323 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION ICAO 
STATE FOR DS/OFM, L/DL, and IO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ODIP AORC EAIR CA ICAO
SUBJECT: CANADA DOWNGRADES ACCEPTANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO 
ICAO FROM DIPLOMATIC TO INTERNATIONAL 
 
¶1. Summary and action request. The Government of Canada 
has instituted an "administrative change" in its 
"acceptance" of diplomats representing their governments to 
ICAO. The category of acceptance (permission to remain in 
Canada) stamped in diplomatic passports has been downgraded 
from "diplomatic" to "international." The unilateral 
change, for which no reason has been given, has angered 
Permanent Representatives to ICAO and has already resulted 
in at least one dispute involving a diplomat who was turned 
away from the diplomatic line at Dorval Airport. The GOC 
has written to ICAO assuring that diplomatic privileges and 
immunities (Ps and Is) remain unchanged. The Secretary 
General will be meeting with a GOC protocol officer on this 
matter the week of March 28th. US Mission requests a 
Department reaction as soon as possible so it may feed US 
input to the Secretary General and to the Canadian 
Representative (in his host country capacity) in time for 
the meeting. Department may also wish to consider a 
demarche to the GOC in Ottawa and in Washington. End 
summary and action request. 
 
¶2. At the March 9 meeting of the ICAO Council, the 
Ethiopian Permanent Representative announced that he had 
recently applied for a new diplomatic visa. As required by 
ICAO's host country agreement, he submitted his application 
through ICAO's Office of External Relations (OER). When his 
passport came back, instead of having "diplomatic" stamped 
as his category of acceptance by the GOC, it was marked 
"International." He wanted to know if there had been an 
amendment to the host country agreement and if so, what this 
meant for his diplomatic status and privileges. If there 
had been no amendment, he asked how the GOC had the right to 
unilaterally change the status notified by the Government of 
Ethiopia from "diplomatic" to "international." A number of 
other delegates complained about the recent use of the 
"international" acceptance for their passports. 
 
¶3. The Secretariat responded that ICAO had been advised by 
the GOC last Fall that an administrative change had taken 
place affecting the category of acceptance, but this would 
not affect the Ps and Is enjoyed by Representatives assigned 
to ICAO. Delegates demanded to know why the OER had never 
informed member states. The Secretary General promised to 
get back to the Council with more information. 
 
¶4. On March 11, the SyG explained the following: On 
October 27, 2004, the GOC had sent a letter to ICAO stating 
that as of that date, all diplomats accredited to ICAO would 
be categorized as "international." In December, ICAO 
requested clarification of the term "international," and was 
told that there was no difference between the diplomatic and 
international categories. The Ps and Is enjoyed by the 
diplomats would not change. On February 9, 2005, the SyG 
wrote to Canada's Chief of Protocol expressing concern and 
asking for a return of the diplomatic stamp for 
Representatives to ICAO. The GOC refused the request in 
writing. On March 10 the Canadian Office of Protocol sent 
ICAO another letter reaffirming that there would be no 
change in privileges under the headquarters agreement, and 
informing that all airports and agencies had been instructed 
that Representatives to ICAO should be treated as diplomats 
when they enter the country. The letter also said that if 
representatives encountered problems at the border, the 
Canadian Office of Protocol might be willing to re-examine 
the matter. 
 
¶5. Quoting from the host country agreement, which grants 
diplomats to ICAO the same Ps and Is as those accorded to 
bilateral missions under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
Relations, Spain informed the Council that one of his 
colleagues had already been stopped from going through the 
diplomatic line at Dorval airport and was permitted access 
only after a lengthy debate with the Canadian official. 
 
¶6. India, Chile, Australia, Peru, South Africa, Russia, 
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Colombia, Honduras, Pakistan 
and Ethiopia also intervened to complain about the change. 
They argued: Their governments had notified them as 
diplomats but the GOC had relegated them to a lesser status; 
it was inaccurate and confusing to categorize 
representatives to ICAO as international civil servants; the 
diplomats would now have to carry a letter from Protocol in 
addition to their passports to prove that they receive 
diplomatic Ps and Is and there was no guarantee that a 
border bureaucrat would accept the letter; since the GOC had 
not negotiated a change in the host country agreement, the 
GOC was not in a position to change the categorization of 
diplomats to ICAO. They all wanted to know why ICAO hadn't 
advised the Council of the change that had been made five 
months earlier. Egypt demanded a legal analysis of whether 
the GOC was within its rights absent renegotiation of the 
host country agreement. The Director of the Legal Bureau, 
quoting Article 12 of the host country agreement, said that 
as long as ICAO representatives receive the same Ps and Is 
as diplomats under the VCDR, there was no violation. He 
added, however, that ICAO would have to monitor the 
practical consequences of this change. When the OER 
acknowledged that bilateral diplomats continued to receive a 
diplomatic stamp in their passports, while representatives 
to ICAO were now getting the same stamp as ICAO secretariat 
officials at the P-4 level and above, some delegations said 
this proved that, contrary to GOC assurances, there really 
were two different classes of diplomats serving in Canada. 
 
¶7. Action Request. The Secretary General reported that 
Canada's Office of Protocol would be sending a 
representative to Montreal the week of May 28th to discuss 
this issue. Mission requests the Department's opinion on 
this matter before then so that we may provide the Secretary 
General with additional input for his meeting. Depending 
upon the Department's analysis, it may also wish to consider 
a demarche to Ottawa and to the Canadian Embassy in 
Washington prior to the ICAO-GOC meeting. 
 
SERWER ALLEN