JP/6/BANDORO

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.