IT was reported that Mr. Wayne May and his wife Alicia, American diplomats posted in India, had been expelled in response to the expulsion of an Indian diplomat from the USA. This kind of tit-for-tat expulsion is not uncommon in diplomatic relations between countries.

After the Mays were expelled, they immediately went on the internet with contemptuous abuse of India. The State Department, the American Foreign Office, immediately disassociated itself from the Mays’ comments. The Mays’ comments were of the nature of century-old stereotypical clichés and showed that the Mays had little idea of the post to which they had been assigned; they hadn’t even updated the clichés!
The Mays’ expulsion was very likely a relief to the American Foreign Office since they were having socially and psychologically dysfunctional diplomats removed from Delhi without the Office having to be involved in the process. And the Indian Foreign Office must have felt that the expulsion had distinct moral and diplomatic justification and was not a mechanistic tit-for-tat.
This incident shows that all diplomats, not only of America, but of all countries need to be fully briefed and given full information of the post to which they are going. If such an ideal were to be achieved, diplomatic relations would be generally smoother and would be plagued with less tension. This is particularly necessary when big, powerful countries are dealing with smaller states.
Guyana, for example, could be challenging to foreign diplomats since it is a country with unexpected nuances. Diplomats should use their intuition and not rely too much on the feedback from “political officers’. This could avoid precipitate action which could often lead to regrettable faux pas. The exercise of patient circumspection would always bring success.

HENRY G. NILES