Belarusian President A.G.

Lukashenko dismissed the ambassador to Bratislava I.A.

Leshchen and Ambassador to Madrid P.M.

Pustovoy.

For the reason that both supported the opposition.

Leshchenya released a video message in which he stated that he was in solidarity with the Belarusians participating in the protests: “Like all Belarusians, I am shocked by the stories of torture and beatings of citizens of my country.”

Pustovoy called the situation in Belarus unacceptable for the European state of the 21st century, called for recounting the voting results and holding open trials over those involved in violence during the protests. 

Disengagement of a diplomat from his government is a rare thing, but it happens.

In 2011, during the "Libyan Spring", a number of ambassadors (in the USA, India, Portugal, etc.) opposed Colonel Gaddafi and resigned.

There were also Polish diplomats who similarly condemned General Jaruzelski, who introduced martial law in December 1981.

Partly on this line is the Soviet plenipotentiary in Bulgaria F.F.

Raskolnikov (Ilyin), who in 1938 published an Open Letter to Stalin in a Parisian newspaper, but only in part - at the time the letter was published, he was no longer Plenipotentiary, he was dismissed earlier.

Another not entirely clear case is the USSR Ambassador to Prague B.D.

Pankin, who openly condemned the GKChP and appointed M.S.

Gorbachev and.

about.

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.

The problem here is that as of August 19, 1991, there was no clear political line that the ambassadors of the USSR were supposed to convey in the host countries.

The leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (A.A.Bessmertnykh) withdrew from business, taking a wait and see attitude, and diplomats abroad acted according to their own understanding - just like in the 18th century, when there was no telephone or telegraph and the ambassador was on an autonomous voyage.

Anyway, in the confusion of August 1991, it was completely unclear who is the sovereign, on whose behalf the ambassador should speak.

Returning from the old cases to the relatively fresh ones, i.e.

to Libya and Belarus, we note that the Libyans, whom many consider to be wild people, in this conflict proved to be quite civilized.

The ambassador to Lisbon, Ali Ibrahim Embored, the ambassador to New Delhi, Ali al-Essawi, and others, first resigned, and then they condemned Gaddafi as private people.

Whereas the ambassadors Pustovoy and Leshchenya, still being extraordinary and plenipotentiary, condemned Lukashenka and only then and did not immediately retire to private life.

Learn etiquette from the Libyans.

This is not a small thing.

The ambassador is also a person and a citizen.

He has the right to disagree with the actions of his government and even outright indignation at them.

But only having ceased to be an ambassador, since the current ambassador does not have his own opinion - he speaks on behalf of his sovereign, who provided him with credentials.

At the beginning of the 17th century, John Donne (who is "Don't ask for whom the bell tolls") wrote: 

“So, the king gives you the decree,

By signing with your own hand.

He clothe you with power,

As if for a while doing yourself.

You burn with a candle in his lantern.

You are the copy and he is the original.

You are a humble ray.

He is the golden sun

And he sent this ray into the distance. "

At the time of the Baroque, they wrote magnificently and ornate, now they are unlikely to write even about after the DPRK and Kim Jong-un, not to mention Lukashenko, but the essence of the ambassadorial service has not changed over four centuries.

Unconditional loyalty to his sovereign (whether he is good or not) is necessary for an ambassador.

Otherwise, his role becomes meaningless.

When he speaks, the sovereign who sent him speaks through his mouth, that is why his speech is interesting.

Whereas his personal opinion to Madrid, etc.

the yard is not too interesting.

When he listens, he listens to convey what he has heard to his sovereign.

Then they tell him this.

Whereas an ambassador who has renounced his sovereign (we repeat again: no matter how sovereign) is nobody, and there is no way to call him.

Severely?

- but this is the essence of diplomacy.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.