Dos and don’ts

Our envoy in Washington

“Our country! …may she always be right; but right or wrong, our country!” is how an American naval officer Stephen Decatur defined his relationship with the state. A similar commitment is expected of a diplomat because inherent to his assignment is the pledge to promote the country’s interest even if he happens to disagree with his own government on its characterisation. The assumption is that the latter has superior insight on policy issues which an ambassador, whose outlook and expertise is defined by his localised and consequentially limited exposure, cannot match. His reservations over policy can and should be conveyed and debated with his authorities but never shared with outsiders. This is the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath.

Washington is a particularly treacherous terrain for a Pakistani diplomat. Apart from being the capital of the most powerful country in the world; it comprises an intricate web of competing and often conflicting demands. So severe is the power imbalance between the country he represents and the country to which he is accredited that it requires the highest level of professional integrity and clarity of purpose to avoid getting entangled in this web. The problem is compounded in the case of a political appointee given his belief that he owes his appointment to an individual and not the system. This is where Ambassador Haqqani seems to have faltered.

Ms Sherry Rehman has been preferred over a number of seasoned career diplomats which might, understandably, create a sense of personal obligation. A versatile media personality and a dynamic information minister, while she lasted, she would need to quickly subsume her personal gratitude under the larger diplomatic mission. Her resignation from the cabinet on a matter of principle fosters belief that she would be able to make this transition effortlessly.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fate of her predecessor, it might be useful to be watchful of some of the red lines which every ambassador is required to respect.

Agreement to represent a country abroad includes acceptance of its institutional make up regardless of its failings. Ambassador Haqqani sought to use his diplomatic position to transform the state structures by attempting to involve the host country in altering the power balance within Pakistan. Promoting civilian control over the military is unexceptionable but falls outside the ambit of a diplomatic agent. The quest becomes particularly objectionable when an outside power is asked to assist in its realisation. Not only does this militate against the basic tenets of statecraft but is intrinsically abhorrent since that power will use any such intervention to promote and consolidate its own interests without regard to those of the subject country. To invite another state to put our house in order while expecting it to remain oblivious to its own priorities, strategic, political or economic, is to misread the elementary lesson of diplomacy that it is anything but an exercise in altruism. The ability to promote cooperation with a stronger interlocutor without allowing it to dominate one’s internal decision making is counted as a prized diplomatic asset. Apparently, Mr Haqqani tried to do the exact opposite.

The current state of the civil military equation is a reality of the Pakistani state accounted for by a host of historical and other factors which need not be discussed here. If an individual feels strongly he should try to rectify the perceived imbalance through political effort at home. To use the cover of a diplomatic assignment to pursue this objective is indefensible.

For the past two decades the central focus of our diplomacy has been to assure the international community of the security of our nuclear assets. This effort was lent special urgency in the wake of the AQ Khan exposure. As a Pakistani envoy one was honour bound to minimise and counter the many questions that were raised by pointing to the whole range of steps that were taken by us to upgrade custodial controls. For an ambassador to urge a foreign power to participate in imparting greater transparency to our security mechanisms is, to say the least, unconscionable. It negates the entire bulk of Pakistan’s diplomatic effort in this regard.

Also any notion of fostering greater civilian control over our nuclear programme is as unrealistic as it is unwarranted. The very thought of some of the riotous characters who showcase their talent for verbal abuse daily on television, supervising our nuclear assets sends a shiver down one’s spine.

The new envoy to Washington has her mission cut out for her. The cloud of distrust which hangs over the bilateral relationship darkened further by the latest NATO attack on our border posts needs to be lifted. The national indignation over the wanton killing of 24 of our security personnel has justly found expression in the suspension of all logistical supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan. But, clearly this cannot become a permanent condition. A complete meeting of the minds on the conduct of the war on terror has now become critical. On this count alone Ms Rehman’s skills will be tested to the limit.

And one last thing, please stay away from Mansoor Ijaz.

The writer is Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the United Nations and European Union. He can be contacted at [email protected]