CHOOSING ONLY THE BEST
If an envoy is a political appointee, he may lack the credibility, skills or qualifications of a good head of mission
ON July 9, Foreign Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah told local media that politicians will no longer be appointed as diplomatic envoys. From now on, diplomatic envoys will be appointed from the diplomatic corps. He added that Wisma Putra has its “own process” of appointing them; and, officers who are interested can apply for them.
A day earlier, Saifuddin said the controversy involving two ambassadors who reportedly refused to relinquish their posts, has been resolved (“One back home, another on the way, says foreign minister”, NST, July 8).
The ambassadors in question were political appointees — one to Indonesia and the other to the Vatican.
According to an English language daily published on June 30, several heads of missions (political appointees during the previous Barisan Nasional government) had been told to relinquish their positions and return home. They included, inter alia, Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohamed Hashim (ambassador to Indonesia), Tan Sri Bernard Dompok (ambassador to the Vatican), and Puan Sri Blanche O’Leary (ambassador to Finland).
Another political appointee, Tan Sri Zulhasnan Rafique (ambassador to the United States of America) resigned on April 23 before the general election. Likewise, Datuk Seri Hasan Malek (ambassador to Cambodia) resigned prior to the May 9 polls to contest the Kuala Pilah parliamentary seat, which he lost.
Five months ago, on Feb 12, five new heads of missions received their letters of appointment from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at Istana Negara. They were ambassadors to South Africa, Poland, Egypt, Myanmar and Nigeria. None of these new appointees was a politician.
On Nov 6, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong presented the letters of appointment to nine new envoys. They were posted to Thailand, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Qatar, Pakistan, Senegal, Morocco and New Zealand. They were all career diplomats.
On March 31, four new heads of missions received their letters of appointment from the Yang diPertuan Agong at Istana Negara. They were posted to Germany, Austria, Kuwait and North Korea. They, too were career diplomats.
Wisma Putra (Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry) was established in 1957 after the country gained independence.
In the beginning, Malaysian had only seven missions abroad (London, Canberra, New Delhi, Tokyo, Bangkok, Rome and Washington), but the number grew to 14 in 1963, 21 in 1965 and 106 in 2008.
Looking back over the last six decades, our practice had been consistently appointing our heads of missions abroad (high commissioners and ambassadors) from among career diplomats.
Admittedly, there had been occasions when political appointees were sent abroad to represent the country.
The inevitable question is whether the ambassador’s role is one of ceremony or substance. In the early 1970s, I spent more than three months at the Hague, the Netherlands, where I noticed that the role of the Malaysian ambassador then (coincidentally, a political appointee) was more ceremonial than substance, as the substantial work to be carried out by the head of mission was instead, carried out by his deputy.
In the US, former president George W. Bush has handed more ambassadorships to political supporters and heavy campaign contributors than previous presidents. Sadly, according to his critics, many of these political appointees lack the basic qualifications to do the job well. According to Wikipedia, about 30 per cent of US ambassadors are political appointees, with 70 per cent being held by career diplomats who worked their way up the US Foreign Service.
During former US president Barack Obama’s term, political appointees were sent as ambassadors to at least 16 countries, including Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Germany, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Although no “one-size-fits all”, an “ideal ambassador” should have, among them, the following criteria — leadership; skill in statecraft (diplomacy); knowledge and understanding of the history, culture and tradition of the country where he is posted; ability and stamina to foster close relationship with the leadership of the country; and, willing to engage in “bold diplomacy” (as and when required).
A common criticism of a political appointee ambassador is that he may come to the foreign service to advance his own agenda, and in the process reduce (negatively impact) the role of the minister of foreign affairs and his professional team in guiding and managing foreign policy.
Another criticism is that these political appointees are given their ambassadorships as “rewards” for their loyalty during political campaigns or as “compensation” when they lose in elections. The ambassadorships are not given to them for their abilities, skills or qualifications.
A third criticism is that too many political appointments as heads of mission can undermine the institutional strength of the foreign ministry. Young career diplomats who worked hard after many years of dedicated service will find that their future progress to the top has been blocked by politicians.
According to the Boston Globe, politically-appointed diplomats are not the same as career diplomats. There is an uneven quality among the political appointees — some are very good, if they follow the advice of the deputy chief of mission (a career diplomat), while others are mediocre or even disgraceful. On the other hand, career diplomats who become ambassadors or deputy chiefs of mission are very good because they understand diplomacy, know how to run an embassy, speak the language of the country to which they are assigned, know its culture, and understand the power relationships within it.
Malaysia is on the right track by putting a halt to appointing politicians as its future ambassadors. Stick to choosing the best amongst the career diplomats.
It was Walter Bagehot who said: “An ambassador is not only an agent; he is also a spectacle.”
Looking back over the last six decades, our practice had been consistently that of appointing our heads of missions abroad (high commissioners and ambassadors) from amongst career diplomats.
The writer formerly served the Attorney-General’s Chambers before he left for practice, the corporate sector and, then, academia