Diplomacy
is generally seen as an exalted profession because envoys enjoy the high
life as well as the proximity of sovereigns, while also contributing to
decision making at the highest levels.
While most ambassadorial posts
are filled by career diplomats who have at least 20 years of
professional experience, some countries also send political appointees
as representatives abroad. Pakistan has a tradition of filling about
one-fifth of its ambassadorial posts by non-career envoys – Jamsheed
Marker has been the longest serving among Pakistan’s most distinguished
non-career diplomats and holds the Guinness record for having been
ambassador to the maximum number of countries.
Every
government enjoys the liberty of tapping non-career resources for
ambassadorial posts. Most countries exercise this option sparingly
because of the demoralising effect it has on the country’s professional
foreign service. Invariably, there is greater burden on the senior-most
foreign service officer of the mission to assist his non-career head of
mission. The US resorts to appointing non-career people on a large
scale. Their selection is not necessarily based on experience in
negotiations but on the size of financial contribution made to the
incumbent American president’s election campaign.
Elsewhere
in the world, non-career appointees are given the honour of
representing their country for having distinguished themselves in their
profession. In general, they would be retired civil or military
personnel who are assigned to posts of secondary importance to the
country’s foreign policy. The most important capitals are normally
reserved for the country’s highest rated and senior most career
diplomats.
It is hard to comprehend why successive
Pakistani governments have found it desirable to appoint their own
chosen men and women to key posts when comparable countries like Egypt,
Turkey, Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil, not to speak of France,
Britain, China, Japan, India and Russia, send their best professionals
to these same posts.
Pakistan has gone further by
selecting non-career envoys to countries like the US and UK where the
appointees have taken up permanent residence. Article 38 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) states that the diplomatic
immunity of a diplomat who is permanently resident in the host country
will be limited to his/her official acts.
What the
convention omits to say, but is generally understood, is that a
permanent resident of a country will be in an awkward situation by
accepting to represent another country even if it is the country of his
origin. In other words, if an ambassador of country A to country B has
acquired residence of the latter, he may at times face a conflict of
interest. And if he has effectively given up residence in his country of
origin, he could feel stressed about serving two masters.
Pakistan’s
rulers have also pandered to their fears by posting prominent
individuals whom they considered potential threats as envoys. The 1970s
were particularly rich in the nomination of these exiles as ambassadors.
Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, who had resigned from the army on account of
differences with Yahya Khan’s policies in East Pakistan, was nominated
as ambassador to France because Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reportedly felt
uncomfortable with the retired general’s presence in Pakistan at a time
when Bhutto was anxious to establish control over the armed forces.
Bhutto
also exiled Gen Gul Hassan and Air Marshal Rahim Khan as ambassadors to
Austria and Spain respectively. He later repeated the exercise by
sending senior most bureaucrats like Qamarul Islam as ambassadors, to
assuage them after abolishing the CSP in 1973.
General
Ziaul Haq kept up with the tradition of appointing retired top brass as
envoys abroad. Among them was Lt-Gen Ejaz Azim who replaced Sahabzada
Yakub Khan as ambassador to the United States. According to one account,
Azim who was serving as corps commander at Mangla was told by Gen Zia
that he had chosen Azim to represent Pakistan in Washington at a
critical juncture in Pakistan’s relations with the US, as the country
faced a growing Soviet threat from Afghanistan.
Benazir
Bhutto too made appointments of non-career diplomats. Some of these were
seen as simply cases of sending into exile certain personalities,
notably General Assad Durrani, the former head of the ISI. While some
saw Gen Durrani’s appointment as ambassador to Germany as a token of
confidence, the version about sending him into exile seems to hold
greater credence.
The Musharraf regime wanted to send a
number of senior military men as envoys to some western countries.
However, there was an unforeseen negative reaction from these countries,
forcing the regime to change its decision and diverting the officers to
posts in developing countries.
As the elected government
moves closer to completing its full tenure for the first time in our
history, it may be time to take stock of the practice of appointing
non-career ambassadors in general, particularly to sensitive posts. The
dubious practice of sending people into golden exile because of the
rulers’ unease with certain individuals should be discontinued.
The
recent press reports about divisions in the Foreign Office on postings
to senior positions, and the role attributed to the presidency, are not
in our national interest or even in good taste. The press should
exercise caution and inform the public without dragging in individuals
who, as public servants, are supposed to be faceless and not use the
press for defending their position.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email: saeed.saeedk@gmail.com