whether to invite Azruddin Mohamed to its reception
Dear Editor,
The controversy over U.S. Ambassador Nicole Theriot’s decision not to invite Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed to the U.S. Embassy’s 250th Independence Anniversary reception has, predictably, been framed by some as a snub, a political statement, or even a breach of diplomatic protocol. It is none of these things. It is simply an exercise of a right that every foreign mission possesses: the discretion to decide who crosses its threshold.
There is no rule in international law, diplomatic convention, or the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that obliges an embassy to invite any particular politician, official, or dignitary to an event it hosts on its own soil, at its own expense, in celebration of its own national occasion. A national day reception is not a sitting of parliament or a public forum to which access is a right. It is a privately curated event, hosted by a sovereign government, extended as a courtesy to those it chooses to honour. The guest list reflects the priorities, relationships, and, where relevant, the legal obligations of the host — not the standing of the people left off it.
This is why heads of state, foreign ministries, and embassies the world over routinely exclude individuals from their functions without needing to justify the decision as anything other than their prerogative. A government is entitled to decline to break bread with someone it has indicted, sanctioned, or otherwise formally distanced itself from. In this instance, Ambassador Theriot was transparent about the reasoning: Mr. Mohamed is under active U.S. indictment and Treasury sanctions. Inviting a sanctioned individual to a celebration hosted by the very government that sanctioned him would not be a neutral courtesy — it would blur the line between diplomatic hospitality and disregard for one’s own legal processes.
Critics who wish to characterize the non-invitation as disrespect toward the Office of the Leader of the Opposition conflate two distinct things: the institutional respect owed to a constitutional office, and the personal discretion a host retains over its own guest list. Guyana’s government is not obliged to invite every foreign dignitary to every state function, nor is any foreign government obliged to invite every Guyanese official to theirs. Reciprocity and courtesy are the norm, but they are extended, not owed.
If a precedent is to be drawn from this episode, it should be this: the diplomatic community, the media, and the public would do well to distinguish between protocol — the formal rules governing precedence, address, and ceremony among those who are invited — and discretion, which governs who is invited in the first place. Conflating the two only invites manufactured outrage where none is warranted.
Respectfully,
Keith Bernard
Discussion