For attention of: Mr. Armand SKAPI, Secretary General
Dear Mr. Minister,
Bearing in mind more than 30 years of the Foreign Service, the legal changes made at different times and the problems encountered, both those related to inappropriate legal formulations and the non-correct implementation of the legislation in force, the Council of Albanian Ambassadors is convinced that the Foreign Service needs inherent legal regulations, as well as for the creation of a culture of correct interpretation and application, in spirit and letter, of the legislation in force.
The Council of Albanian Ambassadors, with the desire to contribute to the drafting and adoption of the best possible law for the Foreign Service, to stand the test of time and to have a career diplomatic corp in the Republic of Albania, after a wide consultation among its members, referred to the best practices in the region and in the EU countries, and appreciating in principle the concern and the intention expressed for the adjustments and improvements intended in this Draft Law, expresses the following opinions:
First, regarding its SPIRIT, the Council of Albanian Ambassadors considers that the Draft Law on the Foreign Service submitted for public discussion, as a whole and in some of its articles, instead of serving to strengthen and modernize the diplomacy of career, it strips it even more from the professional side, turning it into a law of political and party clientelism, where representatives of the latter, dressed in the suit of a diplomat, would turn this career service into party diplomacy, seriously damaging the great professional investment made over decades.
We consider that the relevant draft proposal should have reflected what did not work properly with the existing legislation, what should be improved, and on the basis of which principles these improvements will be made. In the Report it is argued that “…the geopolitical situation has changed…”. CAA is convinced that this argument does not hold, because the Law of Foreign Service primarily regulates the organization and operation of the Foreign Service system itself, as well as the relationship and cooperation of this system with other institutions, such as the President of the Republic, the Assembly, the Council of Ministers, ministries, central institutions and local government bodies, etc. , and with the public.
The change in geopolitical situations (however not elaborated in the Explanatory Report) cannot and should not have the claimed influence on the changes that are intended to be made through this Bill.
We also note that the relationship that accompanies this draft law is largely a copy of the Report that accompanied the process of approving the law that is in force today. If there are no new arguments, the past ones are claimed to have been resolved by the law passed in 2015.
Taken as a whole, the proposed changes bring at least the following serious consequences:
It excessively strengthens the role of the Minister, in matters that are not of the “political direction” category, contradicting the provisions of Law No. 90/2012 “On the Organization and Functioning of the State Administration”, Chapter III, Article 1 of which stipulates that “The Ministry is headed by the minister, who directs the state policy for the field that covers the administrative and controlling work in the institution”. So, the Minister does the political direction, not the administrative direction of the institution.
Contrary to this, this draft law gives the Minister omnipotent decision-making powers in matters of the career progress of diplomats, admissions to the Foreign Service of “specialists” from outside the system, and appointments to the Ministry and to the Representations abroad. In addition to being contrary to the aforementioned law, this fact also contradicts the goals of reforming the public administration and strengthening the independence and professionalism of the career systems.
In line with the above comment, we notice an extreme diminution of the role of the Secretary General, reducing his role from the main leader of the career system and the administrative functioning of the institution, to an ordinary employee who does not even have the formal competence of proposing appointments in the Foreign Service system. In the version put up for discussion, it was considered reasonable that the Secretary General should not even be a member of the administrative structures, such as in the Commission of Degrees and Discipline, which he directs ex officio with the current legislation. It is a fair proposal that the structures of this category be launched by order of the Minister. But we note with regret that once they have been established, these structures will be dependent on the minister, making them completely dependent on political influence.
Very disturbing is the fact that this draft law weakens the diplomatic career system in favor of arbitrary decisions and uncontrolled entries into the system. This brings systemic damage, reducing the interest of good candidates for career diplomats without political support or personal recognition, thus also the quality of diplomatic personnel.
In some specific articles of the draft law proposal, we see with regret that the greatest concern is the adaptation of the law and the relevant rules to accommodate the growing needs for the expansion of our diplomacy, now from otside, to the disadvantage of the career-defining service from the inside. While the conditions, criteria and requirements for diplomats and career holders are further strengthened, they are liberalized and significantly facilitated for the co-optation of diplomats from abroad,creating a harmful social inequality and injustice.
Such an approach, which are found widely in the proposed new law, leaves in the shadow the career diplomats formed over the years, with the aim of gradually eliminating this professional body, to make way for a layer of new diplomats, who are expected to be recruited or rather co-opted, who will receive career attributes, replacing the current ones and taking leadership positions in Albanian diplomacy, without having almost any experience – a necessary quality in diplomacy.
Based on this spirit and the need to avoid the aforementioned phenomenon, we agree and support the work evaluation procedures of each diplomat, the competences of political directors in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in relation to their subordinates, and of Ambassadors in relation to diplomats subordinate to the embassies or diplomatic missions. While the system of awarding diplomatic ranks should be strengthened, it should be well-motivated and according to a well-studied pyramid of ranks. Each workplace must be in full compliance with the level of diplomatic ranks and the career diplomat must be motivated in his path of professional growth, just as he must bear responsibility for non-fulfillment of tasks, this also to be reflected in the progress of the diplomatic career.
The blow to career diplomacy in the Foreign Service Bill that is proposed, reflected and realized through the following forms (and not only): the soft inversion of the relationship between career diplomacy and the so-called street diplomacy/outsiders; through lowering the level of diplomatic ranks for those who will come from outside the system and their expected appointment to senior leadership positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or diplomatic missions/representations abroad; through the removal of the restrictive bandages for those who will be appointed as Heads of Missions, aiming at the expansion of the anti-career corps and into leadership positions within the MEPJ, etc.
Unfortunately and unjustifiably, this negative tendency is intended to be legislated at a time when during the last decades, as is known, our country, with the visible help of the diplomatic service, has scored some major achievements – membership in the Council of Europe, the signing of the SAA, the accession to NATO, the liberalization of visas, membership to the BoG of the IAEA, the unlimited support and the essential and professional contribution to the independence of Kosovo, to continue with the presidency of the Council of Europe, the OSCE CiO, the membership and the presidency of the UNSC, securing candidate status and opening EU membership negotiations, etc.
These and other facts prove that we already have a consolidated and experienced career diplomacy, with diplomats and ambassadors of international profile, with several mandates abroad, who are in leadership positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, without forgetting a significant number of them who have contributed over the years to MEFA and for various reasons are outside it, but still active contributors in this field.
Consequently, the appointment of political ambassadors from outside the system and their involvement in the career service has become much less necessary than years ago.
However, the appointment of prominent personalities of art, culture, literature, the academic world and sports as representative holders is welcome; unless this is limited by law to 10 significant representations for a given mission and period of time. But not as it has happened that they are co-opted from abroad and then continue their diplomatic career without competition, to the detriment of professional diplomats who have dedicated their lives to diplomacy.
We recall that until 10-15 years ago the Law of Foreign Service sanctioned the 20% quota for Ambassadors outside the system. The truth is that this quota was not respected, but at least there was a barrier, which was a reference for the respective criticisms.
The Law of 2015 and the Draft Law in question should strengthen the applicability of this quota and not completely destroy it, contrary to any international practice and the laws of those countries whose groupings we aspire to join.
Based on what we presented in the paragraphs above, this Bill should reduce this quota to 15 percent. In no way can it be left without any limits. This opens the way for abuses.
Based on the above, if the spirit of this draft law is really to strengthen the professionalism and diplomacy of the career, the aim that this Law has had since it was drafted for the first time in 1998, then the career system should not be defined and directed by the respective minister, but by the career diplomacy itself, through the relevant commissions, headed by the Secretary General.
As for relations with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Presidency, the Assembly and other departments, the draft law does not bring anything new, with the exception of the change of places and some different wording but without change in substance or to argue the need for a new law. Certain references to these relationships are even unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the draft law does not change the constitutional non-sense of the 2015 Law, which politically conditions the constitutional signature of the President of the Republic on the appointment and release of Ambassadors.
Thus, the project does not contain any innovations, much less any important ones. Even the definition of the time limit of 4 years and no more than two 8-year terms was in the law before 2015, but it was removed as “innovation”.
The same can be said about other paragraphs such as “ensuring the purity of the image”, banning former communist secret police officials, and others like these, which were also in previous laws.
Also, unlike any experience of the EU countries (where we want to join), the criterion of the diplomat holding only Albanian citizenship is left silent.
Apart from being contrary to all accepted international practices, also sanctioned in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, this contradicts the formula of the diplomat’s oath (Article 44, point 2 of the Draft Law).
Based on the above and comparing it with the 2015 Law, we think it is more correct to talk about “Changes in the 2015 Law” than about a new Law, but which do not solve the systemic problems accumulated over the years in the Foreign Service.
Secondly, let us present “IN LETTER” a number of suggestions/changes in the proposed draft law of Foreign Service, as follows:
In Article 6, point 2. C, the field of consular cooperation should be added.
In articles 7, 8 and 9, it should be determined in the law that, within the framework of the cooperation between the MEFA , the Presidency, the Assembly and the PM, it is also important to inform the MEFA regarding the diplomatic activity carried out by these high state institutions, as defined in Article 10, point 5.
In Article 18, point 4, the rank of Secretary General (SG) should be Ambassador or Minister Plenipotentiary, since he is the highest civil servant and career diplomat in the institution; apart from that, in Albanian diplomacy there is already a good contingent with the diplomatic rank of Minister Plenipotentiary.
Article 20, which deals with protocol matters, should also include the treatment of the leaders of political forces, which are parliamentary parties.
In Article 22, point 2, the Career Commission must be established by the SG, as the highest civil and diplomatic career official, and the decisions of this Commission must be approved by the Minister.
Even the Appeals Commission, provided for in Article 23, should be set up by order of the SG and not the Minister.
Articles 24 and 25 should be summarized, that the Diplomatic and Consular Missions are part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are directed by the latter.
Article 32:
• Point 4, the Foreign Policy Committee of the Assembly must give judgment on the candidate for Ambassador, after he presents his work platform during his mandate, as it has been provided before, including by the Law of 2015. The opinion of this Commission must be forwarded to the President of the Republic, before the decree of the Ambassador in question.
• Point 6, the mandate should be up to 4 years.
• Point 7, the Charge d’Affair must be appointed by the Prime Minister, with the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, since the He is the Head of the MISSION and this level of representation may be for political reasons in the host country, etc.
• Point 8, in any case, the determination of the head of the Mission shall be made with the approval of the Minister, because the diplomat in that position becomes the Head of the Mission. This is explicitly stated in the law.
Article 33:
• Point 1, the Head of the Mission must be selected from those diplomats who hold the diplomatic rank of Minister Plenipotentiary and Ambassador.
• Point 2, the number of the political appointees should have a limit of 15% of the total.
Article 37:
• Point 1, should be defined as career diplomats and not just diplomats; according to this draft law, this term takes on an abusive and subjective character.
• In cases where temporary experts from outside the system are required, they must be well-argued as a “very special case” by a working group specially set up for this purpose. Their selection should be done by competition, with well-defined terms, and the Career Commission should be engaged for their recruitment, which should be appointed by the SG.
• The minister should limit his decision-making duties to the selection of expert candidates, in order to eliminate any tendency of clientelism, partisanship and career damage.
• Point 4 is abusive. There is no reason and it is not possible to have 2 Ambassadors in the same Diplomatic Mission, as the rank of “Ambassador” is given by Presidential Decree, not by the Minister.
In Article 40, add “Persons who intend to become part of the Foreign Service should not have the citizenship of any other country, as they will also be under the jurisdiction of the other country”.
Article 44points c and ç, the rank of DG and SG must be Minister Plenipotentiary and Ambassador.
In Article 45, point 2, remove the “public” reference to international organizations.
In Article 46, point 1, regarding the selection of career diplomats in diplomatic and consular posts abroad, add the phrase “…after the selection by the Appointments Commission, headed by the SG, of the candidates who competed for the vacant post, based on prior notification for vacant positions, meeting the defined criteria…”.
In Article 50, point 5, we suggest that the rank of Minister Counselor has 1 term as Head of Mission, while point 6 the Plenipotentiary Minister should have 6 years of experience in a leadership position (should be included in the leadership position also the position of the Head of the Sector, which must calculated in the 2:1 ratio with that of the Director) and 2 mandates as Head of Diplomatic Representation or Mission.
In Article 51, letter dh, the rise from Minister of Counselor to Minister Plenipotentiary should be 6 years and letter e, from Minister Plenipotentiary to Ambassador should be 8 years and a total career of 30 years.
In Article 52, point b, Consul should be equated with Counselor and the other 2 positions should be reduced below.
In Article 53, point d, “international counterpart institutions” should be added.
In Article 56, point 7, add “When registered on the waiting list, you must be paid at the level of salary you received before leaving work.”
Finally, allow us, Mr. Minister, to express all our willingness to engage in consultations with the relevant working group for the drafting of the Draft Law, in order to have a worthy Law for our Foreign Service.
