Lukashenko's canine companion sparks diplomatic controversy in UAE
The visit of Alexander Lukashenko to the UAE with his dog Umka has sparked criticism from experts as a diplomatic faux pas. However, such blunders can also occur with more experienced politicians.
Alexander Lukashenko travelled to the United Arab Emirates on 17 December with a white Spitz named Umka, which was met with a wave of criticism. Experts considered it a diplomatic blunder because, in Islam, a dog is considered unclean. This is not the first time Lukashenko has travelled with Umka—the dog also accompanied him during meetings with Vladimir Putin and Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Many European leaders have committed faux pas during official visits, often stemming from a lack of awareness or familiarity with Islamic customs or other cultures. An example is embracing the wives of Asian heads of state. Many politicians and diplomats forget that in Eastern countries, it is unacceptable for a stranger to touch a woman.
Diplomatic blunders are not uncommon among world leaders. An example is the situation from 2006, when U.S. President George W. Bush unexpectedly massaged German Chancellor Angela Merkel's shoulders during the G8 summit in St Petersburg, later explaining it as friendliness. Another example is the 1992 incident when U.S. President George Bush Sr. vomited on Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa during an official dinner. Not only actions but also words can lead to diplomatic blunders.
In 2013, Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, unaware of a live microphone, insulted Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, calling her an "old witch". He recalled how Kirchner gifted Pope Francis a yerba mate brewing set to cover up the blunder, forgetting he was Argentinian.
Blunders not only at higher but also lower levels
Not only heads of state make mistakes. here wasConsider an incident during Barack Obama's presidency. During behind-the-scenes talks, a diplomat from the Visegrad Group expressed a controversial opinion about the Civil War, which got him in trouble.
During private discussions regarding the president's birthplace, he shared a controversial view, claiming that the outcome of the Civil War favored the wrong side. This statement resulted in his alienation from the diplomatic community in the country where he was stationed, according to a diplomat's account.
