Better Ambassadors and Balanced Foreign Affairs

The selection of most ambassadorial candidates are largely based on whether the person is close to influential leaders in a particular party or can adequately curry favours. The political leadership does not appear to seriously seek the best possible candidate, even among their own party supporters. There is of course no effort to find nominees from among the pool of deserving and well informed professionals

By Dr. Som P Pudasaini

Nepal is again at the threshold of forming a new government after the resignation of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal on May 4, 2009 under the weight of myriads of self-inflicted and accumulated inter-party, intra-party, domestic and external problems after a stint of about nine months. With the government and its constituent parties changing frequently, and each wanting to appoint representatives to the coveted capitals, the country has been perpetually in the process of selecting new ambassadors for years now.

So far, the top diplomats are poorly searched, randomly appointed and sloppily recalled as the government changes, seriously impacting their effectiveness as well as the dignity of the position. The professional, media and teashop dialogues get loaded with the pros and cons of selecting good ambassadors for a brief period during the season of appointment or recall. Then the issue is thrown in the backburner without any effort to strengthen the selection criteria and process based on the lessons learned. The issue remerges with a big bang when new appointment knocks at our door. But the appointments take place again as usual and the vicious cycle is perpetuated.

Evidently, the selection of most ambassadorial candidates are largely based on whether the person is close to influential leaders in a particular party or can adequately curry favours. The political leadership does not appear to seriously seek the best possible candidate, even among their own party supporters. There is of course no effort to find nominees from among the pool of deserving and well informed professionals. As a result, a majority of Nepal’s ambassadors are political appointees of questionable competence or commitment with only a small number appointed from among the diplomatic core or well respected professionals or competent political lots.

In the modern competitive age, ambassadors play important roles as the builders of national image and facilitators of national interests abroad. Their effectiveness in fulfilling these goals depends largely on the 2C’s concerned with the individual – competence and commitment – and the 2S’s under government’s control – selection and support.

In terms of selection, it could be made effective with three interconnected steps.

First, officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepare a list of potential candidates suitable for a particular country based on clear criteria. Second, the Foreign Minister and then the Cabinet review the list, make necessary adjustments based on clear criteria and recommend the best suitable ones to the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee (PHSC). Third, the PHSC evaluate the nominees based on their commitment and qualifications after conducting its own research as well as probing any valid complaints received from the public. PHSC then make a valid recommendation or rejection citing clear criteria based findings.

The parliamentary hearing is positive in that it functions as a screening as well as a check and balance mechanism. It is, however, seriously flawed in terms of the procedure and substance. First, the nominated candidates are investigated almost entirely based on public complaints received within 5-7 days rather than on the body’s own research and a detailed review of the competence or commitment. At best; the complaints received are few, against more well known nominees and largely driven by personal or political animosities. Hardly any complaints are registered against unknown, unqualified candidates requiring in-depth scrutiny. Furthermore, most knowledgeable and dignified people refrain from registering public complain.

Second, the PHSC lacks adequate teeth as a nominee can be blocked only by unanimous decision of 71 members of the Committee representing 25 parties in the Legislature-Parliament. A rejection by two-thirds if not by half of the Committee members must seal the fate of the candidate if the hearing is to be a serious business. Third, the PHSC has too short a timeframe to complete its investigation, particularly for too controversial or unknown and incompetent nominees, and must be increased to about 30 days.

Aside from the problem of selection, our diplomats also suffer from not getting adequate support from the government. Their faxes, e-mails or telephone calls on important issues are not responded to in a timely or adequate manner. Furthermore, the orientation provided to the ambassadors is grossly inadequate, particularly for the political appointees with little knowledge of tasks and etiquettes of the diplomatic sphere. The absence of adequate resources and clear foreign policy documents based on a minimum national consensus, and their periodic updating as the domestic and international situation changes, hampers the work of even a competent diplomat.

Also, the ambassador and their family are under constant duress of being pre-maturely recalled with disastrous implications to their family life and personal honour. Once an ambassador is appointed he/she should not be recalled for at least two years unless a serious breach is committed in conducting professional affairs sanctioned by the state or for personal conduct unacceptable to the diplomatic position. Ambassadors and embassy staff and their resources are expected to be at the beck and call of ministers, senior officials, influential politicians and their families, particularly when they pass through the duty stations. Their performance are judged on how they perform on airport pickups and drop-offs, shopping needs and other personal idiosyncrasies rather than by how much they deliver in the professional arena.

On the candidates’ front, competence and commitment must be tested thoroughly by probing into their vision and personality traits. Those from the Foreign Service or with international experiences in diplomacy can be expected to have at least the necessary minimum expertise. Raw political appointees, however, can be hardly expected to have the adequate knowledge and must be oriented thoroughly. Commitment is largely a personal trait. Those in the field of diplomacy have already demonstrated some commitment but those coming from outside must be tested thoroughly. Nevertheless, it must also be stressed here that politicians, businessmen or other people have left their mark as effective diplomats provided they are individuals with vision and commitment and are properly selected, adequately oriented and supported.

In terms of eligibility, any competent and committed Nepali citizen living within the country or outside should have an opportunity to serve as an ambassador. However, those who have exploited green pastures outside the country for too long; have made very little contribution to the cause of Nepal and those at the threshold of acquiring foreign citizenship must be probed more deeply for assessing their contribution and commitment. Also, any person who registers blatantly false complaints against a competent candidate must also be appropriately penalised to discourage such mean behavior.

Contemporarily, Nepal’s foreign affairs are perceived to be rather confused and losing some balance. Politicians of different hues cry foul of unwarranted foreign interferences when it goes against their interest and do not shy away from seeking undue external blessing when it benefits them. Our geo-strategic location and overdependence on external assistance makes it imperative that we deal with international community with wisdom and self-respect. A nation in post-conflict situation and politically transitional phase is naturally in a complex diplomatic dilemma at times. The need of competent, committed and careful ambassadors abroad, particularly in critically important capitals, is more striking under the circumstances. One has to be realistic that without a national consensus on balanced and pragmatic foreign policy among key political players-the Maoists and the more democratic lots- and rational approach of our key international friends our most talented ambassadors will not succeed. Consequently, let us hope that better selected ambassadors will be placed in our Diplomatic Missions abroad by our new leaders’ along with more balanced and consensual foreign policy for the benefit of peace process, political transition and socio-economic development.

(Pudasaini is former UNFPA Representative for Sri Lanka and Yemen and Coordinator, International Relations and Peace Committee, NCWA. His email: som.pudasaini@gmail.com)

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.np)

Have your say ! (Registration required)