The designation of special envoys since the Arroyo, Aquino and now Duterte administration has caused confusion. Foreign ambassadors and the private sector are asking what is the difference between “ambassador” and “special envoy”?
By definition, ambassadors are diplomats of the highest rank, formally representing the head of state, with plenipotentiary powers (i.e. full authority to represent the government). In modern usage, most ambassadors on foreign postings are called “ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.”
Special envoys have been created by Executive Order 594 (signed in December 20, 2006) which states “that the conduct of effective foreign policy often calls for the appointment/designation of persons with expertise and experience to undertake special tasks or address certain issues, notably in international economic affairs.”
“Special envoy appointment/designation shall be for a specific and expressly stated mission or purpose, or specified act or event. The specified mission, purpose or act shall not overlap with the regular functions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and/or the Foreign Service or that of the other department or agency or its attaché services.” One example was during the hosting of the APEC Leaders Meeting in 1996. Special Envoys were appointed to deliver invitations and to discuss issues. At the end of our hosting, their appointments lapsed.
Section 8 states: ”Unless by virtue of his rank or the nature of the mission he is to report directly to the President, the special envoy shall report and perform his mission under the supervision of a) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and b) head of the diplomatic or consular post where the mission will be carried out.
Executive Order No. 5 S.2010 (signed in August 25, 2010) explained further that “there is a need to clarify the use of the title ambassador in order to preserve the dignity of said title and position.” Accordingly Section 2 of E.O. 5 stated “that an appointment/designated special envoy shall not use the title “ambassador” pursuant to the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991…..” The E.O.’s objective is to stress the appropriate use of “ambassador” as defined in international convention and diplomatic practice.
Special envoys are not unique to the Philippines, but are used by other countries including the US and also by the United Nations. The common thread is that they are ad hoc appointments for a specific mission and not for bilateral diplomacy. The latter is the province of the ambassador to that country. In a CNN interview, I called the appointment of two special envoys to the US as “rank amateurism.” That was not meant as a criticism of the qualifications of the two gentlemen but rather the justification/need to appoint two special envoys.
In the past, several special envoys were designated to China with vague description of their particular role, i.e. generate business, but not a specific goal within a time frame. It became more like an honorific title that might possibly open doors. So rather than waste energy explaining what a “special envoy” is, they took to calling themselves “ambassador.” Unfortunately, our incumbent ambassador had to explain to puzzled businessmen that she was THE ambassador.
Protocol
This term is defined as a system of rules that explain the correct conduct and procedures to be followed in formal situations. I was the guest of the Japanese government when I was Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The late Domingo Siazon Jr. was our ambassador. Upon arrival in our hotel room, he briefed me on the schedule. It was very precise down to the exact minutes (e.g. 8:32 to 8:47). At the end of every meeting, he asked if I wanted to go to the toilet. I was irked by this question because indeed I was psychologically motivated to follow his suggestion. He explained it would be considered impolite if I took a break because of the tight schedule.
After unpacking my clothes, I discovered my coats were well packed but my wife forgot to include the pants. I casually informed Siazon I could always wear my blazer with gold buttons and grey slacks. The Ambassador was stunned and informed more that the audience with the Emperor and Empress would have to be cancelled. “It is imperative that you wear a proper suit and pants, not a blazer and slacks.” Fortunately, PAL was able to secure my pants before the audience. For the record, my wife is no longer allowed to pack my clothes
After a few months, President Ramos and his official delegation were invited for a state visit. A state visit is an upgraded version from an official visit. Prior to departure, Ambassador Siazon called a meeting of the entire delegation to inform them of the weather and scheduled events. He then proceeded to give us a lecture on proper attire: no blazers, only dark blue or black suits and for the formal dinner hosted by the Emperor, black tie was required meaning a black tuxedo and absolutely no white dinner jackets. He also informed us that during official meetings, brown suits were not used by government officials. During the prime minister’s dinner, I pointed to two elderly former Prime Ministers wearing brown suits. Without blinking an eye, Siazon replied, “old age does that sometimes, they become color blind.”
I understand during the official visit of President Duterte, the Manila press gossiped that Japanese officialdom was worried about his audience with the Emperor. What would be his attire and would he walk with his hands in his pocket, chewing gum? Due to the death of the Emperor’s uncle, the audience was cancelled. We will never know what would have transpired had the audience not been cancelled. But it reminded me of Ambassador Siazon’s stern lecture to me: “when in Rome do as the Romans do” or as the Japanese would say “when entering a village, obey (the custom of) the village. Smart advice! As we visit foreign countries, it is only appropriate that we comply with their own protocol and culture.