Seeking a fit and proper test for RI ambassadors

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.