COMMENT: Of ambassadorial appointments —Zafar Hilaly

The test of good diplomacy often lies in the ease and success with which an ambassador is able to transact a whole range of practical and everyday matters between states

Following the reported resignation of Abdullah Hussain Haroon as the permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN, the search for his successor must be under way. Mr Zardari will once again be able to indulge his whim and fancy. Very few leaders can afford to do that, but we Pakistanis are an indulgent lot. Besides, our patience to suffer fools is infinite.

In the past, Mr Zardari had slotted a livestock expert for the Paris post; and Mr Haroon himself is best known as a bon vivant and a gourmet. Elsewhere, an indicted felon is already manning his post. But Mr Zardari’s weird choices are not unique. Years earlier, a flunkey and a lawyer were nominated for services rendered to an influential cleric. Actually, we have had ambassadors from most walks of life. Businessmen, politicians, soldiers, policemen, dentists, doctors, town nazims — all have had a chance to serve the nation in a job that most were unsuited for by training, aptitude, ability or inclination.

Politicians of all hues believe that being an ambassador requires no training; hence anyone who is a nuisance at home or has a powerful patron can aspire for the job. And the duties they are assigned are sundry and varied. Some they treat as glorified headwaiters or travel agents. Others they task to solicit business for themselves and the really loyal ones get to mind their fortunes stashed abroad. Of course the odd one or two are posted in order to obtain medical treatment at the state’s expense.

Predictably, only a miniscule number of this lot have performed well. In fact, so few compared to the numbers appointed since independence that it is astonishing that no one has thought of scrapping the system or demanding parliamentary oversight, although it does not take a boffin to understand the reason why. All parties revel at the prospect of appointing whoever they wish, whenever they wish to any post.

Z A Bhutto exercised his powers of appointing and dismissing ambassadors to an unconscionable extent. And yet he was not content. So much so that within months of assuming power he took to appointing not only ambassadors and lower ranking diplomatic officials through the lateral entry scheme but also by recruiting them directly at public meetings. In other words, one could arrive at his public meetings a goatherd and leave as the first secretary of our embassy in Vietnam. Perhaps that was one reason why his meetings drew mammoth crowds. Noticeably, Mr Zardari has reverted to this practice by appointing a lady to the post of first secretary in a mission in Europe.

‘Fresh blood’ is the reason often posited for such schemes and there is indeed much fresh blood about, although exclusively of members of the regular foreign service who are stabbing themselves in frustration at being robbed of their chances of promotion.

Whatever else the English diplomat Henry Wotton (1568-1635) may have said, he is best remembered here for his notorious remark: “An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” Actually lying, in this day and age of instant communications and information available at the touch of a ‘mouse’, is about the worse thing an ambassador can do if he wishes to retain a sliver of credibility. In fact, the task of an ambassador is not to lie but rather to tell the truth in as palatable a way as he can without deceiving or misleading his interlocutor and always bearing in mind the larger interests of his country rather than that of the ruling party.

The test of good diplomacy often lies in the ease and success with which an ambassador is able to transact a whole range of practical and everyday matters between states. He should provide the dispassionate advice and judgement essential for reaching the right policy decision. His advice can make an enormous difference whether a negotiation ends well or not.

One is privy to the many hurdles that could have delayed the US-China reconciliation, but which were smoothed over by adroit diplomacy of a former Pakistani ambassador and an erstwhile secretary of state. One also recalls how Nigeria was on the point of severing diplomatic relations with Pakistan following the Musharraf coup, having itself emerged from the nightmarish rule of a military dictator, and how a series of meetings with agitated Nigerian parliamentarians who were about to table the motion in parliament staved it off till eventually the idea was abandoned.

Politically appointed ambassadors will favour the interests of their patron/party above that of the country when the one and the other are not always one and the same. This is implicitly recognised by the rule that all politically appointed ambassadors are deemed to have submitted their resignation once the appointing Caesar departs. The trouble is that, by then, so great is the incredulity and suspicion aroused by the ambassador’s utterances that the damage is done. And if this process continues with the arrival of yet another non-professional ambassador, our envoys lose all credibility.

The recent antics of a non-professional ambassador travelling far beyond his remit to personally receive documents on behalf of his patron lest they fall into the unfriendly hands predictably caused a furore in Pakistan. Rumours abound of another ambassador playing ducks and drakes with the national interest in a major western capital.

Similarly, what the political appointees of Musharraf were up to, and none more so than in the UAE and another in Indonesia, remains to be probed. By all accounts, they contain a treasure trove of revelations.

Of course, not all are saints who go to church. Members of the regular service have their black sheep. And yes there are cliques and coteries. However, the point is that their misdemeanours are entirely self-created and self-induced. At least, they arrive at their post with a common agenda — the promotion of national interests — as opposed to that of a particular party.

Much of this is water off a duck’s back as far as Mr Zardari is concerned. He will likely continue to indulge his whims. A word of caution, however, seems appropriate. Exercising power and forsaking responsibility can end up with a leader forfeiting both.

The writer is a former ambassador. He can be reached at charles123it@hotmail.com