Embarrassing Ambassadors

Political patronage has been the American way of life for a very, very long time. Raise lots of money for a successful presidential campaign, and the unwritten-but-strictly-enforced rule is you get a nice cushy ambassadorial appointment. But since there are limitations on direct contributions, those who “bundle” (read: host events, pressure their colleagues, etc. but get campaign money) do very well as well. For some appointments – like the plush ambassadorial plum “the Court of St. James” (England) – well-heeled, mega-wealthy donors get that appointment because the cost of entertaining and hobnobbing in London is only affordable for those with lots of cash to spend on their own.

But over the years, the appointments that were once relegated for a few at the top are now filtering down beyond the comfort stations (Caribbean venues are quite popular) into mainstream appointments to embassies all over the earth. The Obama administration is indeed a culprit in this abominable habit. Perhaps these appointments are less threatening than they seem. After all, the Department of State is now able to micromanage far-flung ambassadors like never before. Satellite and encrypted Web-links have pretty much taken all but the most ministerial decisions away from field officers. And while this is a morale-killer for many in our Foreign Service who trained to represent our country, perhaps it is a check and balance that counters this negative appointment trend.

As candidates have serially appeared before Senate confirmation committees, the resulting video recordings, reflecting the level of ignorance in too many appointees, have gone viral in the countries where these unqualified candidates are expected to serve. Color me red!

Appointees unfamiliar with the countries where they will represent American interests include people (noted below) who have actually never even traveled to their future appointed countries. “The AFSA [American Foreign Service Association] board approved the new guidelines in early January — before Obama bundler-nominees Colleen Bell (tapped for Hungary), George Tsunis (Norway) and Noah Mamet (Argentina) faced the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The panel approved Bell and Tsunis and hasn’t voted on Mamet. (Some Foreign Service folks have taken to calling them, most unfairly and uncharitably, Larry, Curly and Moe.).” Al Kamen writing for the Washington Post, February 20^th. That Tsunis didn’t know that Norway does not have a “president” seems outrageous.

The AFSA guidelines are shockingly “lite.” “An early draft listed a handful of general criteria to evaluate ambassador wannabes: ‘Leadership, character and proven interpersonal skills.’ ‘Understanding of high level policy.’ ‘U.S. interests and values.’ Management skills. And knowing something about foreign affairs in general and the relevant country in particular. (Putting that one last apparently bothered some board members.)…

“Also, the AFSA board approved the draft on a 17 to 5 vote, we hear, with all four former ambassadors on the board voting against the guidelines, apparently feeling the new ones watered down the 1980 Foreign Service Act’s useless section on ambassador selection.

“That section also orders new ambassadors, within six months of being at their overseas posts, to send the Senate and House foreign affairs committees ‘a report describing his or her own foreign language competence’ in the country’s main language. We’re told no one files these… The act also says that campaign contributions ‘should not be a factor’ in picking ambassadors.” The Post. Did you hear that the Easter Bunny is on the short list this year?

            I’m Peter Dekom, and this is one more piece in the building blocks of the new American plutocracy.