Will "alter-egos" serve our interests better?

M. Serajul Islam
The Daily Star, June 5th, 2009

AN air of despondency is prevailing among our professional diplomats because of the way this Government is appointing ambassadors and high commissioners. All these appointments have not yet been announced because the respective governments have not yet given the agreements. But then secrecy has never been a strong point in our governance and hence most of these appointments have found their way to the press. In fact, a member of the parliament, who is also a former career diplomat, has responded to these appointments in the media as if they have been announced already.

These appointments have been made in a sharp departure from the past. Under the existing system, the majority of appointments of ambassadors/high commissioners are made from the professional cadre who are also posted to most of the important missions, if not all. The system also allows a number of ambassadors to be appointed from the other services - the armed forces - to less important stations on a 70% career and 30% non-career quotas. In the days of President Ershad, who held the career diplomats in contempt, many from the armed forces were given key missions much to the disgust and agony of the career diplomats.

Once elected government returned in 1991, rationality was restored to the system of appointment of ambassadors and high commissioner with minor deviations. A foreign secretary was again posted to one of the key stations: to Washington or to New York. Career diplomats were sent to head our missions in London, New Delhi, Beijing, Tokyo, Geneva, and Brussels. The logic and rationale behind sending career diplomats to key stations evolves from the fact that diplomacy is a specialized profession where the more experience one acquires, the better he/she serves his/her country. This is why all countries have a cadre of professional diplomats who eventually serve their countries at the Ambassadorial level.

Bangladesh has been served well over the years by its professional diplomats. In the early years of our independence, the Foreign Ministry was at the centre of governance as Bangladesh started its journey as an independent country. In those days, the Foreign Ministry was consulted by the Prime Minister's Office or Bangabhavan and its senior officers were often called to Bangabhavan to brief Bangobandhu. Over the years, MFA gradually got detached from the centre of power, a detachment to which the civil service had a great deal to contribute but they kept their professionalism and their ability to represent Bangladesh's interests abroad successfully.

During BNP's second stint in office, Washington and London were given to non-career diplomats but the cadre officers were still at the other key posts like New York, Geneva, Berlin, Beijing, Brussels, Moscow; New Delhi, Riyadh and Tokyo. At present only New York, Beijing and Tokyo are with cadre officers. In case of the last two stations, the career diplomats there will retire within the next few months. In the trend being set, career diplomats cannot be confident that these posts will be given to them.

Quite naturally Foreign Service cadre officers and former diplomats are concerned at the trend of sidelining the career diplomats. In support of this trend, the former career diplomat and now a Member of Parliament and some Ambassadors close to the Government have said that receiving countries give importance to Ambassadors who are close to “top government leaders.” The Member of Parliament went a step forward in upholding the trend, mentioning to the media: "Our ambassadors and high commissioners must act as alter egos of the head of the government. Those people (persons made heads of missions) must reflect the state policy and programme to get better access to their designated destinations." While I have problem with both the views, I am at a loss for words on the opinion of the Member of Parliament. He is propagating a new theory in diplomacy although in the historical context, this theory is an old one that has become obsolete many centuries ago. His theory of Ambassadors as “alter egos” of the Head of State/Government resonates in diplomacy of all ancient civilizations, most of all in ancient India in Kautiliya who described the duties of an envoy as: “sending information to his king, ensuring maintenance of the terms of a treaty, upholding his king's honour, …. suborning the kinsmen of the enemy to his own king's side, acquiring clandestinely gems and other valuable material for his own king…”etc, etc. For retired career Ambassadors who have not been “alter egos” while serving as a head of mission, the concept raises a basic question. Have we, the career Ambassadors, then have been unsuccessful Ambassadors?

One country that appoints a large number of non-career Ambassadors as an exception is the United States of America where President Bush appointed 36% of Ambassadors from non-career background compared to 29% under President Clinton. The US system will of course not be a good example to discuss the subject for two reasons. First, the US system uses Ambassadorial appointments for distribution of spoils where the President gives such appointments to financial contributors to the party, to friends, to persons of special abilities, etc. Second, the US Department of State runs a cadre of professional diplomats who are the best in the profession. The system can thus afford a non-career Ambassador as he/she can count on highly capable career diplomats to support him/her. Traditionally, the US sent non-career Ambassadors to the United Kingdom. In fact, in the long list of US Ambassadors to the United Kingdom starting with Joseph Kennedy during the Second World War till Ambassador Robert Tuttle (2005-09), almost all were non-career ambassadors. In the same period, almost all British Ambassadors to Washington were career diplomats. If one is looking for a reason here, it is in the way US political parties distribute benefits as “spoils” on winning the White House; there is no issue of “alter ego” here.

In Japan, India and in most countries, Ambassadors are drawn largely from career diplomats; non-career Ambassadors are appointed only in exceptional cases. As for the expectation that non-career Bangladeshi Ambassadors will be treated better by receiving countries on the assumption they are close to top leaders, I am afraid this is utterly misplaced. As a Director in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the Ershad era, I heard an Egyptian Assistant Foreign Minister bluntly tell the Foreign Secretary to stop sending non-career Ambassadors to Egypt if Bangladesh wanted to improve bilateral relations. During this period, Japan too expressed dissatisfaction with our policy of sending “alter egos” of the President as Ambassadors to Tokyo.

In the present context, I would not disagree with the Government sending a few close to the Prime Minister to some important stations. The choice of a former diplomat for New Delhi is a good one. He is close to the Prime Minister and an excellent diplomat with past experience in New Delhi. At a time when we can make a major breakthrough in Bangladesh-India relations, it is indeed a wise choice. The same can be said of one or two others. But to suggest that this should be the pattern for all the key stations is both illogical and irrational for a number of reasons. First, it rejects that diplomacy is a profession that needs training, skill and experience. Second, it suggests that non-diplomats are better Ambassadors than career diplomats. Third, it will serve as a death blow to the diplomatic cadre in Bangladesh by totally destroying its morale. There is also another issue with these appointments. A number of these individuals are dual nationals and have settled abroad. Ambassadors are not ordinary individuals and whether one with dual allegiance can be an Ambassador or not is a serious matter.

I feel sorry that some former diplomats have spoken on this subject the way they have. It is sad that logic and reason apart, they have not cared to consider the legitimate hopes and aspirations of those they have left to lead the Ministry. From what one hears, there is no place for even the Foreign Secretary to go to a key station in this “new system”! As a retired career diplomat, I am sad beyond words and would just hope and pray that those taking the decisions would review this policy.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.