The U.S. Ambassadorial Crapshoot: Why Political Hacks Make Bad Ambassadors
“Diplomacy is seduction in another guise, Mr. Adams. One improves with practice.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
Nine years ago this month, the U.S. diplomat George Kennan died at age 101. The renowned author of the containment policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union gave sage counsel on foreign policy up until the end of his long life, to the great benefit of the American people. His 38-year diplomatic career included stints as ambassador to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. An excellent New York Times op-ed the other day said of Kennan, "Like the Founders, he believed the wisest foreign policy limited military intervention abroad while affording the broadest scope for hard-headed diplomacy." Contrast this with the plunge into needless war of the previous administration led by the so-called neo-cons, all ideologically driven, not one a career diplomat.
In my previous commentaries on the anachronistic practice in this country of using ambassadorships for political patronage, I cited several examples of politically appointed ambassadors who had embarrassed the United States through their repellent personal behavior, incompetence or simple dereliction of duty. All had one thing in common: they bought their positions plain and simple. Yes, I know one cannot paint all noncareer ambassadors with the same broad brush, which I also point out in the case of distinguished Americans who did not exchange cold hard cash for their high positions, but who were selected based on relevant skills sets. And, yes, some who did buy their ambassadorial posts have actually performed superbly. But it's a crap shoot: lay your money down and throw the dice. What are the odds that they'll come up a Natural over Snake Eyes? Our senior diplomats should not be selected in a game of money-fueled craps. After all, not only is our national prestige at stake, but our national security as well.
Benjamin Franklin, America's first envoy to France, would be appalled by the dilettantes our presidents have been sending abroad as ambassadors -- people who know nothing of the countries for which they are nominated, nor their languages. Washington sends ambassadors to Spain, Italy, France and Germany who know no Spanish, Italian, French or German. Four of President Obama's latest nominees comprise a Boston attorney, a hotel kingpin, a party agitprop and an assistant producer of a TV soap opera. What do they share in common? Two things: a) they raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the president's last political campaign; and b) they know next to nothing of the nations to which they're destined nor do they speak their languages. Furthermore, they lack depth of knowledge of the mechanics of the U.S. foreign affairs apparatus.
The latter point is key, one that is overlooked in the news media: hoteliers, soap opera mavens, campaign organizers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers may be really good at their given professions. That does not mean, however, they have the slightest idea how to carry out diplomacy -- how to deftly navigate foreign societies, identify their power centers and communicate with the players in their own language; how to deal with dozens of U.S. agencies to tap their energies and resources and to keep them in line; how to manage relations with a Congress that can be your friend one day and your nemesis the next; how to ably manage a multi-agency embassy staff with sometimes conflicting agendas anchored in their D.C.-based departments. I really don't think I'd be good at managing a hotel empire, or making TV dramas, or raising campaign funds. Why would anyone think those with no grounding in statecraft would know the first thing about being a diplomat?
Canadian diplomat Sam Hanson states that diplomacy is more complex than rocket science: “If you get rocket science wrong you lose your spacecraft and crew. If you get diplomacy wrong…you can get locked into wars with no way forward, no way out and no end in sight.” He adds that “it is no more than prudent to take diplomacy as seriously as rocket science. Those who do not will have their heads handed to them by those who do.”
Each administration eventually comes under domestic attack over conduct of its foreign policy. President Obama, fairly or not, is frequently criticized for lacking strategic vision and for passivity. Whatever the merits of these critiques, there is a deeper problem, one that if not rectified, will guarantee that Washington will have its head handed to it on any number of issues. This is the overpoliticization of a foreign policy that increasingly is in the hands of nonprofessional diplomats driven by myopic political expediencies and lacking in institutional memory. Over half of the president's second term ambassadorial nominations have gone to noncareer people. The figure for both terms is around 37 percent -- on the high side traditionally. But the political appointees snatch up three-quarters of ambassadorships in major countries, NATO allies principally, leaving malarial backwaters, war zones and minor satrapies to career Foreign Service officers. What's worse, fully three-quarters of the top managerial jobs in the State Department are now occupied by political appointees, as well as 40 percent of the positions just below the top senior level. The upshot is that "the Foreign Service's input into the foreign policy process (and management of the department) has similarly declined," according to the Foreign Service Journal.
In her book, The Guns of August, the historian Barbara Tuchman provides a fascinating study in how the major European powers slid into the great mass slaughter that was World War I based on miscalculations and rash, short-term thinking. “Basic to the conduct of foreign policy is that problem basic to all policy: how to apply wisdom to government," she said.
Money does not equate to wisdom. It is time to remove it from our diplomatic appointments altogether. Not to do so makes the world's only superpower a laughing stock at best, and a blundering giant at worst.
See also --
Obama's Clown Car
- and previous
Why Does America Send So Many Stupid, Unqualified Hacks Overseas? ~ POLITICO Magazine