IF the intention of the Pakistan government is to downgrade its relations with France then this has been effortlessly achieved by the nomination of a middle-level civil servant, Jehanzeb Khan, as its ambassador in Paris.

Mr Khan, a district Management Group (DMG) officer, was recently promoted to Grade 20 and is equivalent in rank to a minister i.e. a deputy head of mission in important embassies, or, at best, a junior ambassador in countries that are of less significance.

The French are understandably perplexed and embarrassed by this thoughtlessly whimsical decision and have little choice but to either reluctantly accept the nomination, delay their response indefinitely or reject the proposal. Even if Pakistan were to withdraw the nomination, the avoidable damage to its relations with France has already been done. If the nomination is not withdrawn then the adverse fallout is likely to be prolonged.

Diplomacy is a subtle art in which nuance and form are important. The profession is also rigidly hierarchical where the status and stature of an ambassador is an indicator of the importance his government assigns to the country of his accreditation. For this reason, Pakistan and France have been accrediting mostly senior professional diplomats to each other's capitals. Islamabad's previous envoys in Paris include a three-time foreign minister and career diplomats of the rank of federal secretary.

The decision to nominate Jehanzeb Khan, currently the Punjab government's secretary for livestock and dairy development, as the next envoy to France defies logic unless the purpose is to acquire French expertise in manufacturing cheese. The mystery is further compounded by unsubstantiated theories that have featured in the media. One such report is that the appointment was made on the spur of the moment upon the recommendation of a Pakistan-origin French fashion designer during the president's visit to Paris.

Instead of maintaining a dignified silence over the controversy, Jehanzeb Khan has violated a cardinal norm of diplomacy by soliciting an interview with a columnist. He emphatically denied that he had anything to do with his appointment which, he claimed, came to him as a bolt from the blue and, then, unwittingly revealed that he had been summoned to the Aiwan-i-Sadr prior to his nomination and had met the president. This belies the categorical assertion by presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar that the president had not been instrumental in Jehanzeb Khan's selection as Pakistan's envoy to Paris.

Jehanzeb Khan's nomination to the ambassadorial slot in Paris, which violates diplomatic practice and the precedents established by Pakistan and France for the appointment of ambassadors in each other's capitals, has been clumsily justified on the ground that he is said to be close to the brother of President Nicolas Sarkozy. The unwarranted insinuation is that the decisions of the French government will be influenced in its dealings with Pakistan by the personal relationships of the Sarkozy family.

Senior appointments to official posts may be the prerogative of the head of government, but the moral imperative is that this has to be exercised exclusively for the promotion of national interests. In the case of ambassadorial assignments, the overriding consideration must also be the impact that such appointments will have on Pakistan's relations with a third country.

The track record of the government has been atrocious because personal preference and patronage take precedence over propriety. Diplomacy is a specialised profession and it is for this precise reason that many important countries notably Britain, France, Russia and India appoint almost all their ambassadors from the diplomatic service. Under such a system, which would be in Pakistan's interest to emulate, embarrassment to the country is avoided and appointments are more likely to be merit-based.

The Jehanzeb Khan affair has ignited controversy and has been projected in the media as a turf war between the Foreign Service and the DMG. If this were the case, it could have been glossed over as another storm in a teacup that would eventually abate. However it is far more than that because it demonstrates the arbitrary manner in which appointments are made and even withdrawn without any thought being given to what is in the country's best interest.

For instance, a few months back Pakistan appointed an ambassador to China and the latter accorded its approval. Islamabad, for reasons best known to the country's leadership, subsequently had second thoughts and did not to allow the ambassador-designate to proceed to take up his post. Thus despite the hyperboles, repeated ad nauseam, that the friendship between the two countries is “deeper than the oceans and higher than the Himalayas” Islamabad did not have an ambassador in Beijing for an unnecessarily prolonged period. The entirely negative, though unwitting, message to China was obvious. The same adverse consequence is apparent by the supposedly fashion designer-recommended nomination of Pakistan's next ambassador to France.

The leadership of the country does not tire of shouting from the rooftops that it is democratically elected. That may be so but it is only a half-truth because without accountability democracy becomes a farce.

The writer, a former ambassador, publishes the Criterion quarterly.

simurshed @yahoo.com