It has been published that a minor diplomatic incident happened during Nuri al-Maliki (current Iraq's prime minister)'s official visit to France, last month (June/09)
According to the first version published in Italy, the Iraqi prime minister refused to take part in an official lunch, offered by French president Nicolas Sarkozy, once he realized wine was being served in the event.
After having his staff's request to have the "unholy alcohol" be kept off the table denied, Nuri al-Maliki, a practising Shia muslim, decided not to participate, and the lunch was finally cancelled.
The Iraqis acknowledged that they failed to inform the French protocol officials that no alcohol should be served in any of the official events. As reported, the minor incident had no relevant impact on the development of the rest of the visit and the meetings with the French president and other authorities occurred as planed.
I have read several comments on the internet (in general, made by people who have little or no knowledge or formal education in international affairs), who were essentially "celebrating the strength, firmness and courage" of the French government, "in a world where there's so much subservience to Islam's demands". Another person stated that, if "the visitors don't accept my conditions in my own home, they should leave". One of them was even making fun of the Iraqis, alleging they "were arrogant enough to believe that, by simply informing in advance their demands, the French government would have to comply with them".
These people got it all wrong, as usually happens when you give opinions on something you don't know anything about. Luckily for us, Foreign Relations are not for amateurs.
The Iraqis were correct by recognizing their mistake in not informing the French protocol officials about this religious request. But they were equally correct when they assumed that Iraq's government officials were entitled to having their requests diplomatically
addressed, had they informed them in advance. Well, this minor incident can help us understand how etiquette and diplomacy are intimately related, and how professional international protocol offices operate, in nearly all well structured Foreign Relations Secretaries around the world.
First of all, if the French had kept the wine off the table, thus accepting the request of the Iraqi prime minister, that would not imply any level of subservience.
In the international protocol, prior to any visit of a foreign authority, the Foreign Relations officials of each country interchange a list of details that should be respected during all official ceremonies and events. As any person who reads a bit about the world knows, there are many religious, cultural, social and even gastronomical conditions/restrictions/requests that exist due to the enormous variety of cultures and societies around the globe.
When an official visit is prepared, the protocol officials analyze the lists and, in general, prepare the details to make sure the meetings and discussions will happen successfully and according to the restrictions and requirements informed.
IF, FOR ANY REASON, the other country cannot accept one or more of the requests informed by the other country, then diplomatic negotiations begin until a final arrangement is made. If no final arrangement can be attained, then the event can be cancelled or postponed.
Therefore, the Iraqis' only mistake was failing to inform the French protocol about this specific alcohol restriction. If they had done so, the French diplomats would then have the chance to either plan an official lunch without wine, or try to find common ground on this delicate issue.
According to international protocol (the world's etiquette set of rules for political and diplomatic relations), the French were given the chance to refuse and reject Nuri al-Maliki's demands ONLY (AND ONLY) because the Iraqis authorities failed to inform the French diplomats about this religious requirement prior to the meeting... otherwise, the French would have had to withdraw all wine from the dining table, so as to avoid a diplomatic issue due to a failure on THEIR part.
It seems clear now that this entire situation has NOTHING to do with subservience, courage, strength or the fact that "French were bravely holding their ground". People who speak on those terms could never be a diplomat and totally ignore how international relations work.
As we all know, French Foreign Relations authorities are no
amateurs. I am sure that, had they received this "no-unholy-alcohol-on-the-dining-table" request in advance, they would have found a common ground or changed the nature of the first meeting (by not offering an official lunch, for instance), to avoid this unnecessary and unsavory incident.
And as we learned from the musical EVITA, in the famous diologue between the Argentinean leader and a local bourgeois:
"Statesmanship is more than entertaining peasants!"
After all, on occasions, you have to "entertain" a foreign king, prime minister or president, too!
=)
And while both groups deserve respect and attention, the expectable cultural, political and religious differences of foreign visitors demand the observation of some specific rules and conditions. The international protocol has become, over the years, a very useful resource to tackle such a noble task.