JP/6/BANDORO

LEGISLATORS ARE NOT AMBASSADORS COMMANDERS

Bantarto Bandoro Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Center for Strategic and International Studies bandoro@csis.or.id

Indonesian ambassadors are the representatives of our government, people and values around the world. They must lead our overseas posts and manage the program and the resources that support those posts and programs. Therefore Indonesia should send only its best and most qualified people abroad as ambassadors.

But is the fit and proper test, as demanded by our legislators, the appropriate mechanism to produce highly qualified ambassadors? Or why should the legislators be the party to determine who should become ambassadors?

These were the issues raised in a recent editorial and article in this newspaper (the latter by Siswo Pramono).

According to Article 13 of the amended Constitution, the president must take into account the opinion of the House with regards to the appointment of ambassadors. Such a mandate was practiced by the House with full confidence as if they are the one and only party who determine who should become Indonesian ambassadors.

Members of the Commission I acted as if they are the commanders of the ambassadors. The statements by certain members with regard to the screening of the candidates reflects the supposed political strength possessed by the House. It also reflects their undeterred move to intervene in what once used to be the domain of the executive.

Legislator Djoko Susilo had stated that "if we tighten our selection, perhaps more than half of the candidates would be disqualified". Former chairman of Commission I, Yasril Ananta Baharuddin, also stated that "if we conducted the fit and proper test publicly, most of the candidates would have been embarrassed because the public would see what a lack of quality they possess."

Yasril must have forgotten that he was once part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and therefore should have known that the ministry has better knowledge and files on "good and qualified ambassadors."

Those statements are improper, groundless and tend to focus on short-term interests. Why should the House tighten their selection, if their selection criteria has never been made public?

Unfair and unilateral judgment by the House using unknown criteria would only create the image that the legislators have their own agenda and also seek to become envoys.

Actually a fit and proper test would strengthen and nurture democratization in selecting ambassadors and others for certain important posts. But it would be a big mistake for legislators to use such a mechanism to further their political interests.

Their statements and their inflexible stand on the ambassadorial selection issue have gone beyond the normal practice of selecting ambassadors.

Legislators should not apply their own rigid interpretation of the wording of Article 13 of the Constitution, "to take into account the House's opinion"; their opinion is not binding.

Legislators said they rejected some of the candidates because they failed to demonstrate clear understanding about the host country and could only present in their 20-page paper a copied version of a "travel guide".

For some, perhaps the real problem is not whether the candidates have a proper understanding about their missions and plans. The real problem is whether the legislators have an understanding about the missions and host country or other Indonesian international affairs more extensively than the ambassadorial candidates.

The positive thing in the affair is that the public have a say in the nomination of envoys. The point which should be stressed is the quality of ambassadors.

Ambassadors should have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of major world problems. Envoys should try to form a clear picture of the international situation, to analyze it properly and to evolve their own judgment. Thus, the legislators must recognize that the candidates can no longer be content in understanding bilateral relations alone, in view of the interdependence of nations.

There are far more factors in this judgmental process then there were in the days of classical diplomacy. Consequently, the ability to synthesize should be developed even more than the ability to analyze. Perhaps this is the kind of qualification that must be revealed by the fit and proper test. The test must also be able to detect whether the candidates are well informed about the impact of the advancement of information and communication technology on Indonesian diplomacy.

Article 13 of the amended Constitution will remain, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot avoid submitting the list of ambassadorial candidates to the House. But the primary authority for choosing ambassadors rests with the president.

The pulling and hauling between the House and the government on the selection of ambassadors is unlikely to produce serious tension between both sides. The legislators will continue to enjoy their political rights provided by article 13, while there is just no sign that the government will antagonize the House.

The government would then have no choice but to submit another list of ambassadorial candidates. In choosing ambassadors, President Megawati Soekarnoputri should take full advantage of the professional expertise in the ministry and ensure that the highest standards are maintained in the selection of envoys.

The standards can be undermined when individuals are chosen as ambassadors primarily for their personal friendship with the president.

Indonesian diplomacy and diplomats are under public scrutiny. The legislators will continue to have a closer look at the list of ambassadorial candidates. But ambassadors's exposure to Indonesian international diplomacy will later prove their understanding of international affairs is far better than that of legislators.