That UN appointment

17.AUG.07

Yet another political row has broken out between government and Opposition, this time over the appointment of Camillo Gonsalves son of the Prime Minister, as our country’s Ambassador to the United Nations.{{more}} And as has now become customary, the airwaves, and the pages of the newspapers to a lesser extent, have become the outlets for the expression of personal views on the matter. Regrettably, but not surprisingly, not too much of the “debate” is worth following as it tends to degenerate either into personal vitriol or partisan bias.

Whenever an offspring follows a parent in public service, there is always a danger of every move, any action, being coloured by the politics or standing of the elder. From the time Camillo entered the service therefore, being the astute young man he is, he must have been aware of having to carry his father’s burden. There were early signs when the Prime Minister himself announced that he had resisted a recommendation from the Attorney General that Camillo be made Solicitor General, not because he was not eminently qualified, but because of his relationship to the Prime Minister. In the absence of any agreed upon mechanism to handle such matters, Camilo’s UN appointment has therefore unfortunately been bandied between the comments of the Opposition Leader’s “I would never appoint my son thus” and the Prime Minister’s “I can’t discriminate against my son.”

Neither is it a satisfactory way of handling such an important appointment. It is much bigger than the personal views of either of these two key office holders and ought to be above the realm of partisan comment. It is the message that the Constitutional Review Committee, and through it, the thousands who attended the constitutional consultations has been trying to convey, but which seems to be lost on own lawmakers. We must find mechanisms to handle such critical appointments or be forever mired in the morass of partisan political slush. It is Camillo today, but it was his predecessors before and other diplomatic appointments are up for question as to whether personal or political affiliations are the main criteria.

Years ago there was talk of an Advisory Committee on Foreign Policy. Nothing there. The CRC has advanced NACE. Negativity is the response. When then are we ever going to be able to handle such matters of national importance? Is it not better to develop agreed-upon mechanisms? Or are we forever doomed to a culture of political tribalism in which the attributes of young deserving people must be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency?