The Foreign Service Journal, June 2021

20 JUNE 2021 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Committee has long since abandoned its constitutional responsibility. The commit- tee has also abandoned the requirements and restrictions included in the 1980 Foreign Service Act written by Congress, rubber-stamping all but the most egre- gious candidates, knowing that their party will have its turn. Other nations welcome political ambassadors. Wrong. No government wants a rank beginner, especially from a superpower. Governments seldom publicly criticize a nominee, who is certain to be confirmed; but editorials in Australia, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, to name a few, have blasted nominations of novices as indicating that we consider the job, and therefore the relationship, unimportant. Some political appointees are famous, or even popular, which has nothing whatsoever to do with their qualifications or effectiveness. Political ambassadors can raise issues directly with the president. Maybe, but is that good? Few of them are close enough to count on getting through, let alone raise a subject the president may not have been following. Far more important, it is not in our national interest to have any ambassador bypass the national security system; nor should the system stand for it. Noncareer appointees can provide fresh perspectives. Right, but that describes inexperience as a qualification. There is no substitute for experience, especially when contentious economic, cultural or political differences are involved. A lack of background in the thorny issues of relations and the competing interests of sovereign nations can make fresh per- spectives irrelevant, or far worse. The same concept applies in civilian control of the military . Wrong. Civil- ians are never given direct command of troops, planes or ships, the military equivalent of embassies. Many large organizations hire outsiders at the top. Right. But only at the strategic level—CEO, Secretary of State—never at the operating level (regional representa- tive, plant manager, ambassador). At that level, the person in charge must know the what, why and how of the tasks, as well as the organizations that carry them out. There have been some excellent politi- cal ambassadors. Right. The fact that the statement must be made, however, underlines the basic problem: They are hardly ever chosen because of anticipated excellent performance. Financial, political and social connections are the determin- ing forces, not experience or qualifica- tions, producing a vastly larger number of highly marginal performers and far more than a few genuine embarrassments. Amateur ambassadors only need a good embassy staff to do an effective job. Sophistry. The phrase accurately, pain- fully, describes a figurehead, whose most meaningful contribution is to keep out of the way. In that case, why bother having an ambassador at all? The ColdWar is over, but our involve- ment with the rest of the world clearly is not. As recent experience has shown, that involvement can suddenly become profound and complex, and in unexpected places. There is far toomuch at stake to place the always complicated, significant and sometimes critical responsibilities of ambassadors in the hands of well-meaning but unqualified political nominees. America requires and deserves far better than that. n Speaking Out is the Journal ’s opinion forum, a place for lively discussion of issues affecting the U.S. Foreign Service and American diplomacy. The views expressed are those of the author; their publication here does not imply endorsement by the American Foreign Service Association. Responses are welcome; send them to journal@afsa.org. irrelevant. At most, the novice can deal competently with only a very small frac- tion of an ambassador’s total job; others, by necessity, have to do all the rest. Career Foreign Service ambassadors are not necessarily more capable, effec- tive or intelligent than novices, but they have one shatteringly compelling and undeniable advantage: experience. They know the players, the machinery, the procedures, the cultures, the history. In short, they know the work. Political ambassadors, neither capable of being engaged in nor necessarily even aware of many of their nominal responsibilities, seldom find the obliga- tions (as they understand them) overly burdensome. As John Kenneth Galbraith, President John F. Kennedy’s ambassador to India, said: “There were many, many days when, if I didn’t do anything that my staff could do as well or better, I could fin- ish my activities in an hour or two.” Walter Mondale, offered an ambassadorship by President Bill Clinton, declined, saying: “I prefer to pay for my own vacations.” Despite the irrefutable logic of relying on professionals, the present spoils system has supporters. Their ranks inexplicably include some FSOs, otherwise proud of their careers, who do not appear to under- stand the impact on the concept of their profession of suggesting that amateurs could perform the top jobs just as well. The following arguments in defense of political ambassadors are often put forward: The president can nominate anyone. True, but the Founding Fathers, in a far less complicated world, required the Sen- ate to consent after considering nomi- nees’ qualifications. In theory, the only criterion would be national interests; but political nominations reflect the impor- tance of money, friendship and patron- age, and the Senate Foreign Relations