Can U.S. afford citizen diplomats? When career professionals at the State Department become too precious to do the job, the presidential appointees can shine brilliantly. But, alas, not always

0 Comments | Insight on the News, August 12, 2002 | by Martin Edwin Andersen

Can the United States afford to have as many as one-third of its 162 ambassadors chosen for their prowess in making campaign contributions and establishing political relationships with U.S. leaders, rather than international experience and unique skills useful in foreign lands? Or does the increasing complexity of representing the United States abroad argue even more strongly for envoys who are personal friends of the president with access and training unobtainable through traditional diplomacy?

The emergence of Osama bin Laden's international terrorist network underscores the changing nature of overseas threats faced by the United States. Suddenly backwater diplomatic postings--in the "-stans" of former Soviet Central Asia, for example--have become strategically important. Today no overseas post seems too remote or too insignificant to escape terrorist plotting, and many appear vital in ways unthinkable during the era immediately following the Cold War.

"We are now engaged in a war against terrorism in which the battlefield is not limited to major countries," declares a senior Foreign Service officer. "We have to have people managing our missions who have the ability to run these operations. Why risk sending completely inexperienced people who do not understand the complex array of political and management decisions ambassadors face, who lack understanding of the nuances and historical backdrop of the places in which they serve?"

The debate about whether one-quarter to one-third of the presidential appointments to U.S. missions abroad should be "political" appointees has received new impetus since the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Critics point out that neither the Pentagon, the CIA nor any other U.S. government agency must shoulder the burden of a significant cadre of "nonprofessionals" encumbering senior field positions.

Groups such as the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the 11,000-member representative for all career diplomats, long have argued that most appointments outside the Foreign Service are the last remnants of the political-sports system. "we used to sell commissions in the military," says retired ambassador Edward Peck, former executive secretary of the prestigious American Academy of Diplomats. "Until after the Civil War it was decided that generals should know something about war. In private enterprise there is no such thing as on-the-job training for the boss; why do people think it is okay to appoint those without backgrounds in running an embassy as ambassadors?"

Retired senior Foreign Service officer Tex Harris tells INSIGHT. "The U.S. Constitution forbids awarding honors such as knighthoods, etc. Today the title of ambassador is the only honorific title to which noncareer Americans can aspire. So you have individuals who amass fortunes and then decide that, as a capstone to their careers, they want the title of ambassador, not for long careers in public service, but for personal aggrandizement."

Proponents of reducing the number of noncareer ambassadorial appointments say that, since being created in 1924, the Foreign Service has been one way to prevent elections from throwing U.S. diplomatic missions into top-down disarray. In addition, because some two-thirds of serving U.S. ambassadors come out of the career staff, professional morale is bolstered by assuring trained diplomats that they have a chance to rise to the top ranks but at smaller postings.

Sending a purely political ambassador, these advocates argue, can send host governments the message that Washington views relations with it as unimportant. The "winnowing effect" of the highly competitive Foreign Service, they insist, helps to reduce the possibility that people unencumbered by requisite knowledge are appointed. In fact, horror stories told about noncareer ambassadors span decades and political parties, and they include gross incompetence, rampant "clientelitis" in favor of host governments, drug smuggling using diplomatic pouches, renting of diplomatic residences for private gain, no-shows, sexual heroics and other outlandish private behavior. [See, "Clinton's Embarrassing Ambassador"]

According to 1980 law, ambassadorial appointments "should possess clearly demonstrated competence, including, to the maximum extent practicable, a useful knowledge of the principal language or dialect of the country in which the individual is to serve, and knowledge and understanding of the history, the culture, the economic and political institutions and the interest of that country and its people.... Contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment."

However, despite complaints from various self-appointed good-government groups such as the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, rewards for political loyalty have remained a staple of American diplomacy. Not all that much has changed, experts say, since socialite Ruth Farkas famously complained to President Richard Nixon's lawyer: "Isn't $250,000 an awful lot of money for, Costa Rica?"