Daily Times

While I have been consistently highlighting the general decline of Pakistan’s diplomacy in my recent writings, this time, the focus would be on the deterioration in the quality of the country’s contractual ambassadors.

For a considerable part of its history, Pakistan’s foreign policy was steered by an exceptional set of non-career diplomats that made their mark in a world of complex diplomacy. In fact, some of the most outstanding Pakistani diplomats in the yesteryears included the likes of Sir Zafarullah Khan, Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, Prince Aly Khan and Jamshed Marker. However, those were the times when the Pakistan Foreign Service had still not fully matured as a cadre and needed the support of such luminaries from the outside.

What’s common in all the contractual appointments, other than those belonging to armed forces, however, is that these envoys were appointedon the basis of their alleged connections to the Sharif family

In the subsequent decades, career diplomats remained far more valuable than non-career diplomats as the driving force of the country’s diplomacy. Six of them, who became envoys to Beijing, went on to become the country’s foreign secretary in different eras, owing to their sterling performance. Brilliant career diplomats such as Sheheryar Khan, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, Riaz Khokhar, Munir Akram, Najmuddin Shaikh, Inam ul Haq and Riaz Mohammad Khan gave Pakistani diplomacy the flamboyance and character that many western observers believed the Indian Foreign Service lacked.

Sadly, the past few years have witnessed a marked deterioration.

A true reflection of where our diplomacy stands presently can be seen in our lacklustre relations with the West, especially the United States, as well as with many Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Amongst other factors, two reasons stand out. Firstly, a disregard of merit while posting FSP officers to key positions, as evident from the recent selection of unimpressive envoys to most important diplomatic posts abroad like London; and secondly, the deterioration in the quality of non-career diplomats, as demonstrated by choice of Ali Jehangir Siddiqui for Washington.

A great ambassador is someone not just adept at safeguarding their country’s political and economic interests, but also one who is able to project its soft power duly.  Proactive diplomacy, through best possible utilisation of available resources, in the host country is the name of the game in this era. Unfortunately, for Pakistan, this has not really been the case in many key stations. While some of our envoys in important stations have put in a commendable level of effort: New York City, Geneva, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and London (the current one about to be replaced) are some good examples; it does not provide enough traction to carry along the others to a high level of overall organisational productivity.

The situation has been further compounded by the pedestrian performance of many non-career ambassadors appointed in recent times, or inordinate extension to some retired career ambassadors, as a reward for personal loyalty, which has stunted the career growth of younger career ambassadors. A snapshot review of the situation reveals interesting facts.

The agreed quota of contract ambassadors abroad is twenty percent. This includes politicians, retired military officers, media personalities and entrepreneurs. However, this was largely exceeded by the former PMLN government, and at one point the quota reached approximately twenty-eight to thirty percent.

Besides the recently appointed ambassador to Washington, the contractual ambassadors appointed by the previous government included envoys to Canada, China, Cuba, Morocco, Nigeria, Syria, Bosnia and Qatar. Amongst these envoys were those who also held British nationalities. While there’s no harm in being a dual national per se, public service requires surrendering such citizenship, as in the case of former Punjab governor Chaudhry Sarwar. However, these individuals chose not to do so in defiance of the norms.

What’s common in all the contractual appointments, other than those belonging to armed forces, however, is that these envoys were appointed on the basis of their alleged connections to the Sharif family. In Qatar, diplomatic sources have pointed out that Shahzad Ahmad — a UK-based banker — was appointed in a hurried and controversial manner during November 2013, by relocating a career ambassador (who had been appointed only months earlier). Quite clearly, Shahzad was sent to Qatar in the pursuance of some alleged vested interests.

On the other hand, Masood Khalid, the FSP cadre ambassador in Beijing, but presently on a contract appointment, always enjoyed the reputation of being a great workhorse. Interestingly, the Sharifs did not like him initially, when they came to power in 2013, and the then Foreign Secretary was told to remove him. They allegedly wanted a personal loyalist as envoy to Beijing.

Close to retirement at the time, Khalid dreaded an unceremonious exit. In the end, he was given yearly contractual extensions on some alleged personal assurances even as it was very much against the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s ruling on the matter.  Consequently, he has been serving in Beijing since 2012 and is currently on his third yearly contractual extension, post-retirement.

What does it signify? Perhaps, a satisfactory serving of the agenda of the former ruling family.

Maleeha Lodhi, the charismatic envoy at Pakistan’s UN mission in New York City, is probably the only contract envoy of note who has stayed above controversy and performed well in such an important key post. But that is inadequate to bring the overall contribution of contract ambassadors into positive territory.

Keeping in view what has been said, it is high time that the country’s foreign policy is provided with the structure it requires in these challenging conditions. Envoys, whether contractual or career-based, need to be appointed in a fair manner, without bringing personal agendas into play. That is particularly important in the case of the most important diplomatic posts abroad, which require the best and the brightest within the Foreign Service, or exceptional professionals outside the service on contractual appointments. And not the opportunists and loyalists, who end up serving personal rather than national interests.

Equally importantly, in the presence of a whole cadre of capable and experienced diplomats, there should be no room for inordinate extensions that block the career progression of younger diplomats.

The writer is Diplomatic Correspondent, Daily Times. He can be reached at hassankhan440@gmail.com and tweets @mhassankhan06

Published in Daily Times, June 8^th 2018.