If the ignominious suspension of the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Raja Ali Ejaz, and recalling of half a dozen other diplomats sent shockwaves through the Foreign Service of Pakistan (FSP) cadre – Prime Minister Imran Khan’s lambasting of ambassadors in full media glare over allegations of a ‘callous and uncaring attitude’ towards their compatriots abroad was cataclysmic. Singled out in particular were diplomatic missions based in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the UK and Qatar. In a surprise move, the PM also blamed the diplomatic establishment on its lackadaisical approach to the government’s economic agenda by failing to support the inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) and enhancement of trade. While the symptoms may be becoming more obvious now, the fact is that the malaise is not new at all. Deterioration at the Foreign Office has been evident for a while, only the reverses are piling up now, and even the trained penmanship of the diplomatic mandarins cannot put a positive spin to everything going on. What happened in Riyadh was a long time in the making. Ever since Raja Ali Ejaz was posted there, it was clear he was not cut out for serving in such a sensitive location with a massive diaspora, despite his otherwise decent bearing. It may seem to be a case of misjudgment on the part of those who selected him in the Foreign Office. But had merit and suitability been kept in view he should not have been posted there in the first place. Having spent five years in New York City as Consul General, Raja was due to go return to the headquarters as per rules. Also, having never served as an ambassador before, and still in grade 20, he should not have been posted as envoy to such an important capital and certainly not for his very first ambassadorial stint. But, reportedly, his being related to somebody important, led to the relaxing of all rules. Unfortunately, Raja was equally ineffective in political diplomacy, economic diplomacy and community affairs. He was himself reportedly miserable in Riyadh, which may explain how things took such an ugly turn within a year of his arrival, prompting a simmering campaign against him within the diaspora. Insiders say that the reward for the exemplary subservience is supposed to be a consolation ambassadorship to either Washington or Beijing. That would be in clear violation of the rules, however, which mandate that nobody with less than two years of service left should be sent as an ambassador; particularly to any important capitals And what did the Foreign Office do to address the situation? It just waited for him to retire, which he will do later this month. Only when Lt General (retd) Bilal Akbar arrived in Riyadh, his formalities completed, did Raja leave for Islamabad. This is just one example of how violation of merit affects organisational efficiency. There are many others. Last year, after a string of controversial foreign postings, the matter ended up before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) where the Foreign Office undertook to follow the 2015 posting policy in letter and spirit. In missions abroad, things have come to such a pass that two embassy officials in Seoul were allegedly caught shoplifting, as per South Korean media reports, and were only saved by diplomatic immunity. In Oman, a junior diplomat who had an inquiry conducted against him some years ago, for embezzling community donations, is now the ambassador there. The reasons for his unpopularity would be anybody’s guess. Institutions wither under the watch of uninspiring and partisan leadership. The foreign secretary is a decent person and a great workhorse, but the general impression within the Foreign Office is that he is a weak voice, and does not lead from the front. But perfectly suitable for any foreign minister seeking unquestioned subservience and total administrative control of the organisation. None of the brilliant foreign secretaries of the past, such as Agha Shahi, Riaz Khokar, Riaz Mohammad Khan, Sheheryar Khan or Humayun Khan would have ceded their authority like this. Salman Bashir declined to give up his share of administration authority during the incumbent foreign minister’s last stint at the Foreign Office. It may have been that very experience which led him to pick an exceptionally pliant officer this time. The choice apparently bore fruit for him, but to the detriment of the institution. Insiders say that the reward for the exemplary subservience is supposed to be a consolation ambassadorship to either Washington or Beijing. That would be in clear violation of the rules, however, which mandate that nobody with less than two years of service left should be sent as an ambassador; particularly to any important capitals. The reason for that is quite simple. It costs the government anywhere from fifteen to twenty million rupees to post a senior ambassador, given the expenses on two-way relocation. Equally important, it takes envoys around six months to find their footing and make the required contacts to be effective in a new place. And the last couple of months of an ambassadorial tenure is spent doing the rounds of farewell calls and dinners. Hence, sending an envoy with less than sixteen months of service remaining is tantamount to a sheer waste of precious government resources; besides the adverse impact on the functioning of an embassy and bilateral relations. Sadly, a cavalier attitude has been exhibited by the diplomatic cadre in this regard during recent times. Naghmana Hashmi was sent as envoy to China when she only had nine months of service left. Aman Rasheed was sent to Mexico with only eight months of service left. Now the foreign secretary wants to be rewarded with an ambassadorship knowing full well that by the time he reaches the designated capital he would have barely over a year of service remaining. So much for the careful utilisation of precious national resources, that too in foreign exchange, by a poor country whose economy is hanging by a thread. And unless things take an unexpected turn, plans are underway to bring in an even more docile foreign secretary, a relatively junior one by all accounts. The final selection is likely to depend less on the person and more on whether the capital he vacates suits the incumbent. Prime Minister Khan, who came to power with the promise of meritocracy has a responsibility to act. A lecture to ambassadors is not enough. Substantive actions need to be taken to ensure that embassies perform the way they should. And what could be those actions? First and foremost: upholding merit and suitability by ensuring that laid out policy and rules are followed. Secondly, bringing about long overdue reform in the systems and procedures of service delivery (where the embassies are heavily dependent upon the input of other ministries and departments back home). Thirdly, provision of adequate resources to the embassies abroad, which in many cases are grossly understaffed and under-equipped. Lastly, a foreign secretary should have a full three-year term and should not be eligible for an ambassadorship subsequently. Because when that possibility exists it becomes the single-minded pursuit at the cost of national priorities and damages the institution. The writer is Associate Editor (Diplomatic Affairs), Daily Times. He tweets @mhassankhan06