Tag Archives: politically appointed ambassadors

Buying an Ambassadorship

All U.S. politically appointed ambassadors were ordered to quit their posts by the Trump administration when Donald Trump took office. Career ambassadors stayed. This is the usual practice when a new president takes over.

I spent most of my career in the State Department under career ambassadors, for which I was grateful. Of the two politically appointed ambassadors I served under, one did a credible job. The other appeared to be there mostly for the political trappings. Many such appointments are awarded for significant campaign contributions.

One politically appointed ambassador to a small European nation was known mostly for refurbishing the ambassador’s residence.

Politically appointed ambassadors rarely serve in impoverished developing nations or in those on the front lines of war. After all, more ambassadors have been killed than generals. You certainly don’t want that to happen to a party faithful.

Some political appointments do work out well, such as that of Pamela Harriman to the U.S. embassy in Paris. A wealthy socialite once married to the son of Winston Churchill, Harriman was noted for her keen political instincts. She no doubt spoke French very well.

The typical political appointee, however, doesn’t speak the country’s language, unless it’s English, and often knows more about NFL scores than about the foreign country’s history and politics.

Other democracies appoint their most seasoned foreign service officers as ambassadors to the United States. Dictatorships are prone to send cronies to their diplomatic posts.

Where the Spoils System Is Alive and Well

 

Years ago the comic strip Doonesbury ran a segment lampooning the political appointment of U.S. ambassadors. In the storyline, government officials of an unnamed country strive to maintain secret connections with a lower level American diplomat. They seek to bypass the appointed ambassador, a know-nothing doofus named because he gave money to a political campaign.

One might expect corrupt dictatorships to send politically connected hacks to serve as ambassadors. But do we want to imitate them?

Map of NATO countriesHow about our democratic allies? What kind of people do these countries appoint as ambassadors TO the United States? According to a recent study of ambassadors from NATO countries (May 2014 issue of The Foreign Service Journal), not a single one serving at the time was politically appointed.

Peter Bridges, a retired career ambassador, wrote in a recent article on the Internet: “In all of our republic’s history, only one career Foreign Service officer has ever been our ambassador to the United Kingdom—our most important ally. . . . In contrast, the British almost invariably send one of their most experienced career diplomats to Washington.”

On average, around one third of U.S. ambassadors are appointed for political reasons, usually because they give money to political campaigns. Democratic and Republican presidents are equally guilty in the appointment of favorites instead of career Foreign Service officers who’ve spent years serving in countries all over the world and learning how to deal with foreign governments.

We don’t appoint generals because they give money to a political party. Even in corporations, where money matters a great deal, managers usually are chosen for their skills. Why should it be different for ambassadors?

Of course, political ambassadors are generally not appointed to dangerous countries like Libya, where career ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered by terrorists.