Much of the press is let down that Obama, despite his attitude of bringing change to Washington, has nominated some apparently unqualified people for ambassadorships. I’m planning to write a bit about this next week, but I’d like to hear your opinions. Many of the current nominees are Obama fundraisers, with limited foreign policy experience, who may or may not speak the language spoken in their host country. So, here’s the discussion bit, should there be minimum qualifications for Ambassadors? Right now, anyone can be nominated, and the congress hasn’t suggested any standardized rules for who will be confirmed. If there should be some minimum qualifications, what should they be? Should we even have appointed Ambassadors? What kind of experience should be considered? Should any executive experience count, or only foreign policy experience? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Discussion: Ambassadorial Qualifications
Previous post: Isolate or Integrate?
Next post: The Hegemonic Conspiracy
{ 1 trackback }
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m so sick of the term “Executive Experience”. The CEO of The Jim Henson Company isn’t necessarily predisposed to work in government because of that experience. Politics requires a different level of finesse and foresight that “can” be acquired in that position, but not necessarily. Success in business doesn’t equate to success in politics. We are not putting the most qualified people available in these key positions. I mean really Charles Rivkin. Ambassador to France!? What has he done to prove that he is capable of being an excellent statesman?
As a college student who is interested in joining the Foreign Service after graduation and hopefully becoming a senior diplomat somewhere down the line, I find it discouraging to see the highest-level diplomatic posts in the world go to well-heeled allies of the president with no expertise, no history with their host country, no history with diplomacy in general, and/or nothing to offer other than deep pockets. When I say that I am going to school to become a diplomat, I have to explain that my chances of being an Ambassador are slim-to-none because Ambassadorships are given out as gifts like knighthoods in modern Britain.
An example: Dan Rooney as the Ambassador to Ireland is just an embarrassingly bad choice. Sure, the guy’s got Irish blood and gives to Irish-American causes, but there are better people out there. The guy is the Chairman of a sports team that very few people in Ireland have probably ever heard of, in a sport that very few Irish care about. He’s also a hypocrite that thinks it’s alright for one of his employees to slap his girlfriend around if it’s a fight over religious differences. With Ireland’s economy hitting the wall harder than almost any other in Europe, and our close historical and economic ties to the country, wouldn’t we want a qualified individual to serve as our Ambassador there, or at least one who isn’t as polarizing and irrelevant as Dan Rooney?
The appointments aren’t all bad; one I don’t have trouble accepting is Jon Huntsman for Ambassador to China. Huntsman is Governor of Utah, but don’t let that domestic position fool you. He is fluent in Mandarin, having gone on mission for the Mormon church in Taiwan as an adolescent. Huntsman has served as trade representative and served a stint as Ambassador to Singapore in the 90’s. The catch is that he’s not an ally to President Obama. The man’s a Republican’s Republican from the reddest state in the union, but he is very much qualified to do the job.
And then there are choices that just border on the bizarre. This week, the President appointed Tim Roemer as Ambassador to India, the other great power of the east. Roemer, a Democratic Representative from Indiana from 1992-2003, has done a whole lot of nothing in foreign policy except oppose NAFTA and sponsor the executive mistake that is the Department of Homeland Security. So…why? Why are we giving a washed up ex-pol the ambassadorship to the world’s largest democracy and a crucial ally valuable to our interests? Did Obama think he was giving him an Ambassadorship to INDIANA instead of INDIA? It boggles the mind, but nobody cares besides us FP wonks.
Hey! Don’t hate on Indiana! (I’m being cheeky:)
This reminds me of a blurb I read yesterday that concerned itself with the necessity of ambassadors. Basically, the premise read that if the requirements for ambassadorship are so inconsistent/nonexistent in many regards, why bother appointing them at all? Here is a link/tell me whatcha think- http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/24283.
One argument I’ve read is that effective ambassadors derive their power from their proximity to the president; I guess I always saw them as emissaries of the dude, not necessarily policy wonks. There was another article that distilled this concept of proximity-to-power ratio and applied it to defining effective Secretaries of State. So, this must be the rationale they use in doing the whole political appointee thing; that is a good enough requirement if it fulfills the true definition of an ambassador, but yet again, it depends on how you perceive the role.
On a side note, I’m under the impression that the Chief of Mission runs the embassy side, and with all of these “special envoys” (Holbrooke, et al.), I’m getting kinda confused about who does what in reality; my ignorance is showing. Maybe someone who has an insider’s perspective could set me straight?
Toodles!
Ren
Thanks for the great comments so far. @ Ren, Thanks for the link, if you go to the original article I actually commented on it a couple of times as “TH.” Is propinquity the only requirement then? Or should there be other qualifications? [I also second his call for someone serving w/a special envoy, I'd love to hear your opinions.] @ KB, To play devil’s advocate, surely executive experience counts for something. Not to cone bash, but is the CEO of a multi-national really that much less experienced than, say, a management officer when it comes to policy?
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here, too. So, some points:
* A politically appointed ambassador has to lean on their Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), regardless of language skills. Not unlike the relationship between Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby in the UK comedy Yes, Minister, this may actually give the career civil servant more power.
* Ambassador may be one of those jobs that, as Malcolm Gladwell put it in his New Yorker piece, “Most Likely to Succeed”, we don’t have any good predictors for until a person takes up the job. Thus, track record may not mean a lot… And if not, doesn’t ruling out whole classes of people have the risk of ruling out qualified ones as well? As Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems said, “”Most of the smart people in the world don’t work for you.”
* Some may sniff at the idea of campaign contributors so consistently having the fast track over the decades. On the other hand, that ability to raise funds, and the political influence that comes with it, may well have some value for advocacy for the Department on Capitol Hill when the time comes.
* I’m reminded of the story of George Schultz having ambassadors come in to his office, and asking them, “Show me your country,” on a globe he had. They’d point to, say, France. “No, that’s the country to which you’re assigned. Your country is over here, the United States of America.” Sometimes that mistake is made by political appointees, sure. But given the way Executive Branch departments end up advocating for those whom they regulate (thus, DoD ends up advocating for defense contractors, Agriculture for agribusiness, etc.), I’ll bet even career FSOs made ambassadors sometimes make the same mistake.
Leading a company is far different than leading a nation or leading a diplomatic post. Executive experience is useful I’m sure, but it seems that there would be other skills more important in such a role. I understand that a management officer may not have the skills either, but its hard for me to believe that the head of a children’s movie studio (or any other such Executive) is the MOST qualified man/woman for the job. I honestly would like to know if some of people appointed to these positions could even pass the FSOT.
“I honestly would like to know if some of people appointed to these positions could even pass the FSOT.”
Does that matter? (And I’m speaking as someone taking the FSOT a week from now, so I know I have a vested interest.)
At heart, I’m an empiricist. Part of that means I’m very much attuned to seeing survivorship bias. To me the question is, Does the FSOT predict anything other than FS employment? Has the experiment ever been run where people with median (or even below median) FSOT scores have been hired, to see how they do over their careers? Has there ever been a study of FSOs at retirement, to see if there’s any correlation of their FSOT scores and their career arcs?
Or, and this may be an uncomfortable question (but more accurately reflects a survivorship bias issue, having raised the topic):
How many people score highly on the FSOT, then, when it comes time for the decision about tenure, wash out anyway?
I’m happy that Hal brought up the Gladwell piece on the impossibility of knowing what predicts outstanding performance in certain positions. If ambassadors were required to take the FSOT, would we see any better results? Political appointees introduce some chaos and new perspectives to the fairly insular world of diplomacy, for better or worse. If the ambassador is to rely on the DCM for day-to-day operations (like Hal said), I’d hate to say it, but I think propinquity to the president is a good enough requirement for me.
On a personal note, I would like to state that I’ve passed the FSOT and am going to the OA in July/August, and I’m just some punk kid from the middle of nowhere. While I’m thrilled, I harbor no delusions that I would be any smarter or more qualified than someone with executive experience, but I can appreciate your argument, KB.
HAL, I’m just trying to say that these political appointees should be the best of the best. Knowledgeable of both their country and their host country. They should have executive experience, but also balance that with a strong sense patriotism and wisdom. Someone who is asked to represent our country and oversee a large group of people should be at least as qualified as them if not more. I just want to see the best man for the job in these positions, and sometimes I just don’t feel like that’s the reason their chosen. If my ambassador can’t name the first five amendments to the constitution I have a serious issue with that, and the way the system is set up basic knowledge of the country doesn’t seem like its a prerequisite for the position.
Remember that the Ambassador is the President’s representative to the host nation. So it is not a bad thing for the host nation to have a representative that has some kind of relationship with the President.
I look forward to reading everyone’s comments in response to George Clooney’s future ambassadorship nomination to some war-torn developing nation - or Brad and Angelina’s first ever joint-nomination to an ambassadorship in Cambodia. Mark my words, folks, these things will happen before I reach retirement age. If recent nominations are a true indication of where we’re headed (publicity and croniehood over dedication and qualification) then we might as well just skip the charade and call it knighthood like the Brits (nice one, Jimi!). I know this sounds cynical, but I just know Hollywood will merge with State eventually - and when it happens it will take every ounce of self control I can muster to stop myself from ripping off the arms of small children and beating stray dogs.
Oh yeah, Huntsman is excluded from this rant. He looks solid for the nomination and I’m sure Obama took no small amount of democrat flak for making the call.
“Mark my words, folks, these things will happen before I reach retirement age.”
If you were alive from 1974–76, or from 1989-92, it already has. Because Shirley Temple Black was a much bigger star than anyone you’ve named.
Another note: I don’t blame Obama for nomination foibles. The political machine driving ambassadorships was churning out unqualified candidates long before he took office, and it would take more than a few months in office to buck all the corrupt systems - if they can be bucked at all, that is.
To Hal:
Right you are. I must confess, I had no idea about Shirley Temple’s political ambassadorships. I totally would have missed that on the written exam! As a side note, has anyone answered a Shirley Temple question on the FSOT? Ha ha.
Shirley Temple had a fairly long career in politics - she wasn’t appointed out of the blue. Clooney et al would have to do likewise (and I don’t think activism per se is enough) to garner a post. In any case, so far as I know, the ambassadorial appointments given to friends / supporters of the president-elect generally are not made to war-torn nations, where real work must be done at every level, and relying on your DCM won’t be enough. Besides, major contributors, if they do indeed hope for an ambassadorial title, surely don’t want to find themselves in Ouagadougou - they would rather be at the Court of St. James.
So, Jimi Alexander, take heart - you may well make it to an ambassadorship.
Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you’re okay.
Money, it’s a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I’ll buy me a football team, scratch that, an Ambassadorship to Ireland!