Diplomatic Dispute Between Canada and India Gives Insight Into The US And UK Standpoint With Both Countries Siding With Canada; True Allies Or An Example Of Western Dichotomy?
The ongoing diplomatic dispute between Canada and India has caught the attention of the world, with allegations, accusations, and actions that are reverberating on the international stage. Several important questions come into mind, for example, why did America kill Osama Bin Laden? On one side, for the Western regimes and media - Hamas is a terrorist organisation, while Khalistan is not. However, one thing is clear: the rules of the game seem to be different for Western countries as compared to Asian countries. Amidst this turmoil, it's essential to consider the impact on ordinary people, who often find themselves caught in the crossfire of political disagreements; hence, the viewpoints shed light on the dispute's consequences while examining both governments' roles in safeguarding their interests.
On Friday, both the United States and the United Kingdom issued calls to New Delhi, urging it to reconsider its demand for Canada to reduce its diplomatic contingent in India; their concern followed Ottawa’s decision to withdraw 41 diplomats in the midst of a dispute concerning the murder of a Sikh separatist.
Consequently, the Indian government laid its cards, following suit and asked Canada to reduce its diplomatic presence in India.
Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, expressed this concern, stating, “We are troubled by the departure of Canadian diplomats from India in response to the Indian government’s request for Canada to significantly reduce its diplomatic presence in India.”
The Diplomatic Standoff
Both Washington and London have taken Canada’s accusations seriously and have urged India to cooperate with Canada in the murder investigation, even though Western nations have been cautious about openly condemning India.
In response to Canada’s allegations regarding Nijjar’s killing, New Delhi had asked Ottawa to decrease its diplomatic representation, prompting Canada to withdraw 41 diplomats from India. In addition, Canada announced the temporary suspension of in-person operations at consulates in several Indian cities, along with warnings of potential visa processing delays.
Following the ongoing events, the U.S. State Department emphasized the importance of diplomatic efforts in resolving differences, urging the Indian government not to insist on a reduction in Canada’s diplomatic presence and to cooperate in the ongoing Canadian investigation.
The Department also invoked the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, expecting India to uphold its obligations under this treaty.
The British Foreign Office, also citing the Vienna Convention, stated that “the unilateral removal of the privileges and immunities that provide for the safety and security of diplomats is not consistent with the principles or the effective functioning of the Vienna Convention.”
The Canadian Appeal
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, speaking after the withdrawal of diplomats, expressed concern about the Indian government’s actions, noting that they were causing difficulties for millions of people in both countries.
Trudeau underlined that these actions contravene basic diplomatic principles and could affect the well-being and happiness of millions of Canadians of Indian origin; he pointed out that the expulsion of diplomats could disrupt travel, trade, and the educational experiences of Indian students in Canada.
It’s worth noting that India’s foreign ministry defended its actions, arguing that the higher number of Canadian diplomats in India and their interference in Indian affairs justified a reduction in mutual diplomatic presence in New Delhi and Ottawa; as a result, Canada now has only 21 diplomats remaining in India.
The Viewpoint: Why Western Countries Always Band Together?
The diplomatic standoff between India and Canada has revealed particular insights that need to be taken cognisance of – questions about the differing standards Western countries and media apply when designating specific organizations as terrorist entities, thus highlighting the double standards regarding groups like Hamas and Khalistan.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s perceived support of terrorists and anti-India elements is particularly concerning, and so is the fact that both the US and the UK seem to be in open support of this matter, siding with Canada rather than understanding India’s point of view.
It also raises concerns about the presence of proxies of China and Pakistan operating under the guise of freedom of speech in Canada, and India has to respond to such threats; while the Canadian government wants to prioritize the well-being of its citizens likewise, the Indian government needs to protect its sovereignty.
Another question that comes to mind is the stand that the US takes when it comes to protecting its own sovereignty; take, for example, the massive operation that was conducted for years to apprehend Osama Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks on US soil.
However, the fact is that at the end of the day, the negative consequences of the diplomatic dispute between Canada and India have left ordinary Indians suffering the consequences of the conflict, primarily due to the closure of visa centers in India, which makes it more difficult for Indians to access visas for travel or study.
The closure of several visa centers in India has primarily harmed the Indian population as these closures have made it more challenging for Indians to obtain visas for various purposes, such as travel and study in Canada; hence perhaps this move is detrimental to the very people the Indian government is meant to protect.
The Last Bit,
The diplomatic dispute between Canada and India is a complex and multifaceted issue with far-reaching consequences.
It has raised questions about the motivations of not only both governments involved (India & Canada) but also the US and UK (two major economies of the Western world) and their perspectives.
When it comes to the global arena of diplomatic relations, it is essential for nations to balance their sovereignty and national interests with their commitment to protecting the rights and well-being of their citizens, and this diplomatic standoff is not serving anyone.
