Seeking a fit and proper test for RI ambassadors

Siswo Pramono, Phd Candidate, Australian National University, Canberra, s8851447@student.anu.edu.au

The House of Representatives retains the constitutional mandate to advise the President whether a candidate is suitable to be appointed as an ambassador. But what does the House Commission I use as a yardstick to determine what is "fit and proper" in order to carry out such an important judgment?

Age was one major factor behind the recent rejection by the House of some ambassadorial candidates. For instance, Rezlan Izhar Jenie was considered too young while Abdul Irsan was considered too old. But age is irrelevant in the quest to determine who is a good diplomat.

Baron Schelto van Heemstra, the Dutch Ambassador to Indonesia, is 61. Ralph Boyce was 49 when he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the ambassador to Indonesia. The two are neither too old nor too young for the job.

With the on-going reform at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which many directorates are now headed by career diplomats in their early 40s, it is likely that Indonesia will have even younger ambassadorial candidates. Consequently, a professional diplomat might serve as ambassador more than once during his or her career.

The House's rejection of the candidacy of those who had previously been appointed as ambassadors, too, while logical, is contrary to international practice. Van Heemstra, for instance, held various ambassadorial posts in Lusaka, Buenos Aires and Paramaribo before serving in Jakarta. This is, therefore, not a unique case to be dismissed in the hearing.

The hearing by the House is nevertheless an important step to attain effective diplomacy. The improvement of the quality of our diplomats is in fact a pressing need. There have been incidents that show the capability, behavior, and lifestyle of some diplomats had fallen somewhat short of expectations and hence impeded the achievement of diplomatic goals.

The immediate goal of our diplomacy is to grab all international and domestic opportunities to help Indonesia remove itself from the multi-dimensional crisis. There are tremendous challenges in attempts to reconcile the political and economic process with the international environment.

At the end of World War II, the victors provided a blueprint of international relations -- the Atlantic Charter. No one provided such a blueprint for a post-Cold War world. As such, our economic diplomacy failed to foresee the Asian economic meltdown in 1997. And now, as Indonesia is struggling to survive the deep impact of the regional crisis, it has to face a new, dangerous, security meltdown in the wake of Sept. 11. Thus, diplomacy is no longer business as usual.

But judging the diplomatic profession is a daunting task. There are "shoulds" and "should nots" that the House must consider.

First, the fit and proper test must not drag the diplomatic profession into party-politics since this will diminish our diplomatic capability in international fora. In other words the ambassadorial candidates must not seek political support from (or engage in lobbying with) political parties to pass the test. Otherwise, the practitioners of diplomacy will be fragmented by the competing, if not selfish, partisan politics. An ambassador is the envoy of the whole nation, not the representative of political party.

Second, the constitutional mandate of the House notwithstanding, the appointment of ambassadors remains the prerogative of the president, as head of state. The appointment of Soemadi D.M. Brotodiningrat as envoy to the U.S., despite objections from the House, provides a constitutional precedence.

Last but not least, the House must formulate an objective yardstick for the fit and proper test. This must include an in- depth observation of the leadership style, intellectual capacity, and personal integrity of the candidate.

Such personality, according to Harold G. Nicolson, a British diplomat, in his book Diplomacy, includes truthfulness, precision, composure, good temper, patience, modesty and loyalty (to the nation). While not forgetting the fact that diplomats are only human, the test must be able to find in every candidate the evidence of such basic virtues. A good personality will harness the intellectual capacity.

Diplomats, like other professionals benefit from special training and education. Thus, the test must be able to reveal the candidate's eagerness to maintain an attitude of learning throughout life (iducation permanente). This intellectual capacity provides a strong foundation for the candidate's leadership.

Leadership is the most important requirement for an ambassador and thus the test must be able to identify the leadership style of the candidates. After all, running a diplomatic mission is an exercise in teamwork, not a one-man show. A good ambassador is a good manager.

If the test is to be taken seriously, then the question is: Can the House properly judge the personality, the intellectual capacity, and the leadership style of a candidate by simply holding one meeting with the candidate, or by listening to the candidate's presentation for one hour or so?

Abdul Irsan and Rezlan Izhar Jenie are career diplomats with an outstanding track record and experience. The rejection by the House for the sole reason that one is too old and the other is too young has raised many questions about the validity of the test. The point is, the House must have a better yardstick in carrying out such an important task. Otherwise, good candidates fail, and bad candidates will find ways to pass the test.

The writer is also an official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.