Ranking of Ambassadors in International Diplomacy: The Case of Ambassadors-in-Situ in Nigeria
Bola A. Akinterinwa
An ambassador in international law and relations is described as a diplomatic agent and head of a diplomatic mission. Members of the diplomatic staff are also referred to as diplomatic agents. The 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations did not define who an ambassador is, but from the late 14th century to 1960, an ambassador was considered as a ‘diplomatic emissary of a ruler in the court of another.’ Etymologically, ‘ambassador,’ is derived from ambactus, a Latin word meaning a servant or a vassal, and from a French word, ambassadeur. It was also spelt as embassador in the 17th and 18th centuries. The United States never subscribed to the use of ambassador as a title until 1893, but opted for the usage of ‘Minister’ who was considered an ambassador and ‘who only represented the State and not the Sovereign.’
From the foregoing, it means an ambassador can be accredited to a State or to a Sovereign. Conversely in terms of representational functions, an ambassador can represent a state or a sovereign. This difference in representational duties also partly explains the difference in ambassadorial rankings in contemporary times. Without doubt, an ambassador is defined as the highest ranking diplomatic agent of the sending State in a receiving State and the ambassador may be resident or non-resident in the context of concurrent accreditations. An embassy may not be confused with a para-diplomatic mission whose head may be inferior in rank to a full ambassador with Letters of Credence.
Grosso modo, an ambassador answers different names and have different ranking: Apostolic Nuncios and internuncios, Resident Ambassadors, Ministers Plenipotentiary, High Commissioners, High Representatives, Resident Representatives, Ambassadors-at-Large, etc All these designations have specific meanings in international law and relations. It is against this background that the appointment of 115 or 155 Nigeria’s career diplomats as ambassadors-in situ should be explained. In other words, in which way is an ambassador-in-situ different from the internationally classified ambassadors in international relations?
International Ranking of Ambassadors
International ranking of ambassadors not only serves the purpose of determination of seniority and order of precedence in diplomatic and official receptions, but particularly also to enable that water finds its level in interactional relationships. In diplomatic practice, it is not expected that a Third Secretary will be interacting with diplomats that are very senior to him, because the position of an ambassador necessarily reflects a cumulative reservoir of diplomatic experiences. It therefore takes a long time for a Third Secretary to become an ambassador. In other words, before a Third Secretary qualifies to be considered and appointed an ambassador, his personality in all ramifications must have been clearly established. The personality and integrity, as well as the societal standing of a would-be ambassador must have also been reckoned with before appointment. Impeccable character, mental soundness, tact, self-discipline, patriotism, as well as good attitudinal disposition constitute the required criteria to be met by a would-be good ambassador.
As noted in 1965 by Jean Serres, a Minister Plenipotentiary, in his Manuel Pratique de Protocole, ‘un état qui, sciemment, se fait représenter à l’étranger par un homme qui ne mérite pas le respect ne se respecte pas lui-même.’ Explained differently, ‘a State that is consciously represented in a foreign land by a man who does not merit respect does not respect itself’ as well. This point is another way of saying ‘show me your friend and I will tell you who you are.’ It also implies that it is not every Dick and Harry that can be appointed as an Ambassador.
In this case, the personality and position of the ambassador should not be confused with his ranking which is internationally defined and regulated, even if he serves as a Head of Mission. First, ambassadors answer different names and have different rankings. The Apostolic Nuncio, which is the oldest and name given to the diplomatic missions established by the Vatican, are headed by Nuncios or pro-nuncios. What is noteworthy about the two missions is that the Nuncios, until the 1960s, were generally given the right of a primus inter pares, and by so doing, considered as the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in the capital of the receiving State. Eventhough Pro-nuncios were accepted as Heads of Mission, they were not given the automatic status of a Dean like the Nuncios.
Another category of ambassadors is that of the High Commissioners who head the High Commissions that are exchanged by Member States of the Commonwealth organization. Like the Vatican missions, the High Commissions have their peculiarities. For example, there is one exception to the rule of High Commission which is that of The Gambia which established a High Commission with Senegal, a Francophone and non-member of the Commonwealth. The Gambia established a High Commission with the objective of underscoring the special political linkages with Senegal. Their attempt at the formation of a Sene-Gambia State is an illustration of the efforts at the special relationship.
There is also another peculiarity in the culture of the High Commissions: Letters of Credence normally given to the High Commissioners have been replaced with Letters of Commission or Letters of Introduction. While the Letters of Commission are given by the President and Heads of Government, Letters of Introduction are given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Letters of Commission are presented to Presidents of the receiving States while Letters of Introduction are presented to the Prime Ministers of the receiving State.
More interesting is the consideration of London as the world capital of the Commonwealth countries, and by implication, High Commissioners cannot become the Dean of Diplomatic Corps. One rationale for this may not be far-fetched: Queen Elisabeth II and now King Charles reside always in London. The determination of who becomes the Dean is largely determined by seniority, which again is determined by longevity of the time of presentation of Letters of Credence. Apart from being the colonial master, there is no way the Queen or the king will not always be the longest serving chief diplomat. And perhaps most interestingly, a distinction between the Ministry for Commonwealth Affairs which dealt directly with the Commonwealth countries, on the one hand, and the Foreign Office, which deals with other foreign countries, on the other hand.
The category of High Representation established between France and the Member States of the French Community cannot be ignored. The ambassadors were called High Representatives. It is useful not to confuse this High Representative with the Resident Representative, who is sometimes referred to ordinarily as Representative, who is not only a member of the diplomatic corps, but who is below the rank of a full-fledged ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. A Resident Representative is accredited by an international organization, especially by UN agencies and the Bretton woods institutions to a country’s government.
Apart from the foregoing, there are still the categories of Chargé d’Affaires, Chargé d’affaires ad interim, and Ambassadors-at-Large whose ranking are not necessarily like that of the extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Ambassadors-in-situ constitute another category of ambassadors who are charged with special duties but not appointed to a specific country. This category will be analysed in the next section. Ambassador-at-large, referred to as ambassadeur itinérant in France are diplomats or secretaries or Ministers of the highest rank accredited to represent a country and its people internationally. Every sovereign State determines the type of ambassador to be nominated for purposes of agrément. Whether the ambassador will be of the first cadre, whether diplomatic relationship will be maintained at the lower level of a chargé d’affaires all depend on the President.
Secondly, in terms of structure of diplomatic ranking, most countries of the world have seven layers of ranking: Ambassadors, Minister, Counsellor, First Secretary, Second Secretary, Third Secretary, and Attaché. Many of these layers still have their differentiations. For example, the United States has three top ranks: ambassador who is accredited to another Head of State, Minister who is accredited to another government, and Chargé d’Affaires. The last two appear to have entered into désuétude. The ranking of ambassadors in the Russian Federation is equally interesting: Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary are the highest in rank and are divided into types, First Class and Second Class. First Counsellors are considered as main officials. The ranking was established by enactment of the Federal Law of 27 July 2010, no. 205-FZ. Russian diplomats are well respected, especially with their uniform and insignia (patches, stiches over the place for buttonholes, as provided for in Decree no. 799 of 17 November 2001.
Diplomatic ranking in China can be exemplary. Article 11, Chapter III on Functions and Ranks of the Law (Order No. 19) of the People’s Republic of China on Diplomatic Personnel Stationed Abroad, stipulates in order of seniority that ‘diplomatic posts are Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Representatives, Vice Representatives, Minister, Minister-Counsellor, Counsellor, First Secretary, Second Secretary, Third Secretary, and Attaché.’ Additionally, the Order 19 says ‘consular posts are Consul-General, Deputy Consul-General, Consul, Vice Consul and Consul Attaché.
If there are two levels of Representatives in China and there is only one category in other countries, where do we place the Vice Representative in terms of ranking? Ambassadors-in-situ is a special ranking in Nigeria. Where is its place in the international setting? Can a Member State of the international community have its own categorization of ambassadors? If yes, to what extent can the categorization be complied with by the diplomatic corps in the receiving capital? What type of privileges or order of precedence are they entitled to? In responding to these questions, it is necessary to have a tour d’horizon on Nigeria’s ambassadors-in-situ in its appropriate context.
Nigeria’s Ambassadors-in-situ
As reported in tribuneonlineng.com on Tuesday, 16th November, 2021 the Federal Government of Nigeria appointed one hundred and eighty-eight (188) ambassadors-in-situ and presented them with Letters of Commission. According to the Government, ‘Ambassadors-in-situ are diplomatic officials of the highest rank sent by one country as its long-term representative to another usually in recognition of their selfless service to nation-building as officers of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.’
More important, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Zubairu Dada, noted while ‘conferring and presenting the ambassadors with Letters of Credence, that the occasion was ‘unique, not everyone who is being conferred with the title was in recognition for their selfless service to the nation, and as such, should not see the title as a favour but their rights for quality service to Nigeria, as it is the time when the nationalism in them will come to the fore, especially by assisting the government in working for the good of the country.’ And perhaps most importantly, Ambassador Julius Shodipe, who responded and showed gratitude of all the recipients to Government, said that ‘many of the recipients had retired several years ago and longed for the title which is just coming’ and that the occasion was ‘the first time this kind of massive conferment on serving and retired officers of the Foreign Affairs Ministry’ took place.
In 2022, President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) approved the appointment of 62 (sixty-two) Senior Officers as Ambassadors-in-situ. At the investiture that took place on 23rd May 2022, the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama, congratulated all the recipients. Again, on Saturday, 4th February, 2023, PMB approved the conferment of the title of Ambassador-in-situ on 155 (one hundred and fifty-five) Foreign Service Officers. Although some other published sources talk about 115 diplomats (Premium Times Nigeria), the point remains that all the recipients were all presented with Letters of Commission and the rationale for their appointment remains the same.
In this regard, Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama underscored the role played by the Foreign Service Officers ‘in consular services, looking after the interest of individual Nigerian around the world.’ As he further explained it, ‘one aspect of our foreign policy and diplomacy that a lot of people take for granted and do not appreciate sufficiently is the fact that we have excellent relations with every single country on Earth’ (vide tribuneonline, February 4, 2023). True enough, the Foreign Minister could not have been more correct.
It is crystal clear from the foregoing that the Federal Government of Nigeria appears to want to thank diplomats who were qualified to be appointed as Ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary but for various reasons of force majeure, could not be so appointed. This observation was made clear in the appointments made in 2011 under President Goodluck Jonathan. 11 (eleven) diplomats were made Ambassadors-in-situ in recognition of their selfless service to nation building as officers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As reported by Emman Ovuakporie in the Vanguard of January 21, 2011, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, ‘described the occasion as unique’ and that ‘not everyone who is being conferred with the title had served in the foreign land while some have served in some international organisations and that they served creditably, long in service, committed and dedicated to the service of their father land in the capacity in which they had played their roles.’
More interestingly, Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, was reported as saying that ‘it was time in the recipients’ career to be recognized and be given a title reflecting their commitments, saying he is happy to confer the title of ambassador to the deserving Foreign Service Officers who have served the nation in different capacities. In essence, the appointments and the reasons often given are quite interesting because of their implications for the foreign policies of other States.
First, the appointments remind me of what Lord Mansfield said in Campbell’s Lives of the Chief Justices: ‘consider what you think justice requires and decide accordingly. But never give your reasons, for your judgment will probably be right, but your reasons will certainly be wrong.’ It is precisely what has obtained with the appointment of ambassadors-in-situ in Nigeria. The appointment is good and perfectly in order. It corroborates Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of 1809 in Maryland that ‘the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.’ It is good enough that the recipients are very happy. The problem however is the foreign policy implications and new issues raised. As observed by Odein Ajumogobia. Not everyone who is conferred with the title had served in the foreign land while some have served in some international organisations. This observation should be well understood. For anyone to be referred to as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, such a diplomat must have served in a foreign land. The word plenipotentiary is from a French word, plénipotentiaire, meaning ‘with full powers’, full powers to represent and act on behalf. The use of the word, extraordinary, is to inform the host government that the ambassador is not ordinary and should not be taken for granted, because of the plenitude of his powers. Ambassadors-in-situ have not been given the opportunity to so serve and therefore cannot be said to have such full powers, and logically therefore, cannot be higher in ranking than ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Because the recipients of the title of ambassadors-in-situ have attained the level of being so appointed but have not been so considered, and by virtue of their dint of hard work, patriotism of purpose, and immense contributions, wisdom cannot but direct that they should be remembered for posterity. The mathematical calculations of how many ambassadors Nigeria has had cannot but sharply increase.
On the issue of some of them serving in international organisations, the designations are again different. Those who work in international organisations are called international functionaries and not diplomats. Their appointed ambassadors are called Resident Representatives as noted above. Whether one serves abroad or at home, the important thing to note is to avoid confusing professional diplomatic titles with honorary diplomatic titles. Ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary is the crescendo in the continuum of diplomatic career ranking, while ambassador-in-situ is a newly introduced highest ranking honorary title. The beauty of this is that the honorees can legitimately use the title before their names, unlike recipients of doctorate degree honoris causa. Whoever is not a diplomatic careerist cannot use the title of an ambassador after leaving office. The character of an ‘in situ’ cannot be superior to that of ‘extraordinary and plenipotentiary.’ While it is commendable to recognise the contributions of the Foreign Service Officers, the unfinished task is to borrow a leaf from the judicial system: conferment of SAN on academic lawyers. Academic diplomats who have even served as plenipotentiary ambassadors, like Professor Akinjide Osuntokun, Professor Alaba Ogunsanwo, Professor Joy Ogwu, Professor Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, etc. qualify to be so considered. In fact, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, was an international functionary, who performed creditably well, defending the national interest and that of his organization, the World Interlectual Property Organisation (WIPO). He qualified to be honoured with the title of Ambassador-in-situ. This will give more prestige to the new title. Recall that Chief Ojo Maduekwe, CFR, served as High Commissioner to Canada after having served as Foreign Minister of Nigeria. This is the height of patriotism. This is why an honorary Ambassador-in-situ cannot be superior to an Ambassador plenipotentiary who is internationally and professionally so classified.
