By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
In international relations, diplomats are the official representatives of their home countries in foreign states. They are required to follow a set of formalities, known as diplomatic protocol, which ensures the smooth conduct of their duties and maintains respect for the host country’s traditions and laws. One of these key formalities is the respect for national symbols, particularly the national anthem. Diplomats are expected to stand respectfully during the playing of the host country’s anthem at official ceremonies. This practice is not just a courtesy but an obligation rooted in diplomatic protocol and international law.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, serves as the foundation for the conduct of diplomats. While the Convention grants diplomats immunity from the jurisdiction of the host country in many respects, it does not exempt them from adhering to the social customs and protocols of the host nation. According to Article 41 of the Convention, diplomats are obliged to respect the laws and regulations of the host state, including ceremonial protocols. Although the Convention does not explicitly mention national anthems, the expectation is clear: diplomats must act in a manner that reflects respect for the symbols and values of their host country.
Diplomats are typically afforded significant privileges and immunities, such as exemption from local laws, but these do not excuse a diplomat from behaving inappropriately during official ceremonies. Disrespecting a national anthem could lead to consequences that, while not criminal in nature due to diplomatic immunity, might involve other repercussions. A diplomat showing a lack of respect for the host nation’s anthem could result in diplomatic censure, formal complaints, or requests for an apology. In severe cases, such behavior might strain relations between the diplomat’s home country and the host nation.
Historical examples of diplomats who have disregarded these protocols are not common, given the sensitivity of the issue. However, there have been a few instances where diplomats have been criticized for failing to adhere to the expected standards of respect. One notable example occurred in 2002 when the American ambassador to Denmark, Stuart Bernstein, caused a minor diplomatic incident by failing to stand for Denmark’s national anthem during a formal event. While Bernstein later clarified that the failure to stand was unintentional and due to a misunderstanding of local protocol, the incident received significant attention in the Danish media. The U.S. embassy in Denmark swiftly issued an apology, emphasizing that it was not intended as a sign of disrespect.
Another significant example is from the 2018 FIFA World Cup when the Serbian ambassador to Brazil, Veljko Lazić, did not stand during the playing of the Brazilian national anthem at a public viewing of a football match. The incident caused an uproar in Brazil, leading to diplomatic discussions and a formal apology from the Serbian embassy, which clarified that the diplomat had not intended any offense.
In more serious instances, failure to respect such protocols can lead to significant diplomatic strain. For instance, in 2020, a Chinese diplomat in Canada, Cong Peiwu, faced criticism for refusing to stand during Canada’s national anthem at an event commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s founding. Canadian media took note of the incident, and while the Chinese government did not issue an apology, it added to growing diplomatic tensions between the two countries at the time. This incident, while not leading to an expulsion, contributed to an already complex relationship between Canada and China.
One notable example occurred in 2019 when the Turkish consul in Germany remained seated during the playing of the German national anthem at an official event in Berlin. The incident took place during a period of strained relations between Turkey and Germany, particularly over human rights issues and political asylum cases. The German media and public expressed outrage over the consul’s behavior, viewing it as a deliberate act of disrespect toward Germany. Although no formal diplomatic protest was lodged, the event was widely criticized, and it contributed to the growing perception of a diplomatic rift between the two nations.
Another high-profile case involved Russian diplomats in Estonia in 2016. During a formal ceremony in Tallinn, marking Estonian independence, Russian diplomats refused to stand for the Estonian national anthem. Given the complex historical relationship between Russia and Estonia, which includes tensions over Russian influence in the Baltic region, the diplomats’ actions were seen as a political statement rather than mere negligence. The Estonian government issued a strong protest, accusing the Russian delegation of disrespecting Estonia’s sovereignty. This incident further fueled the already strained relations between the two countries, where issues of national identity and independence are particularly sensitive.
In 2018, an incident involving a Venezuelan diplomat in Colombia further highlighted the delicate nature of respecting national symbols in diplomacy. At an official ceremony in Bogotá, the Venezuelan representative failed to observe the protocol during the Colombian national anthem, remaining seated throughout its playing. The situation was especially delicate given the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela and the strained relations between the two neighboring countries. The Colombian government formally protested the incident, viewing it as a sign of disrespect at a time when diplomatic tensions were already high due to the Venezuelan refugee crisis and differing political ideologies.
One of the most contentious incidents occurred in 2013 when a North Korean diplomat in Malaysia refused to stand during the playing of the Malaysian national anthem at a state function. The diplomat’s actions were widely condemned, particularly because Malaysia and North Korea had maintained relatively friendly relations up to that point. The refusal to stand for the anthem was seen as a provocative act, especially as North Korea was facing increasing international isolation. The Malaysian government, known for its careful diplomatic balancing act, issued a protest but did not escalate the matter further. Nevertheless, the incident left a lasting impact on the public perception of North Korea’s diplomatic behavior.
On September, 2024, a notable incident occurred during the National Rehmat-ul-Lil-Aalamin (PBUH) Conference in Peshawar, where Afghan Acting Consul General Muhib Ullah Shakil and his aide remained seated while all attendees stood in respect for Pakistan’s national anthem. This act of not standing, seen as a diplomatic gesture of defiance, sparked widespread discussion and criticism in both political and media circles. The Afghan diplomat’s actions were interpreted by many as a sign of disregard for the host country’s customs and courtesies, adding to the complex dynamics of Pak-Afghan relations. The incident highlighted the sensitivity of diplomatic protocols and national symbolism in regional politics.
These incidents, though rare, demonstrate that even unintentional breaches of protocol can have diplomatic repercussions. Disrespecting national symbols, such as the anthem, can lead to formal complaints, public scrutiny, and diplomatic protests. In more severe cases, such as ongoing tensions between countries, these actions can exacerbate existing strains in relations, as seen in the Peshawar incident between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The incidents as mentioned above consequences for these diplomats were not severe, followed by clarifications and apologies. However, these examples highlight the sensitivity of national symbols and the importance of following established protocols. It is also essential to note that diplomats represent their countries’ values and policies abroad. Their behavior is often scrutinized, not only by the host country but also by the global diplomatic community. Adhering to local protocols, such as standing for the national anthem, reinforces the values of diplomacy, respect, and peaceful coexistence. Conversely, failure to follow these customs can harm not only bilateral relations but also the broader perception of a country’s diplomatic conduct.
In conclusion, while international law may not mandate specific behaviors during national anthems, established diplomatic customs, local regulations, and the Vienna Convention’s broader principles all suggest that respect for the host country’s anthem is a crucial element of diplomatic protocol. Disrespecting these practices can lead to diplomatic protests, strained relationships, or in extreme cases, the expulsion of the offending diplomat. Diplomats, as representatives of their nations, must carefully adhere to these protocols to maintain the decorum and respect that underpin international relations.
