The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2006

T here is an old story that has been circulating throughout the ranks of the Foreign Service for years. In this tale, a politicallywell-connectedU.S.Navy captainwho is incom- mand of an aircraft carrier battle group visits the U.S. embassy in a foreign country where the carrier is making a port call. At a reception that the ambassador hosts inhis honor, theNavy cap- tain exclaims: “This is a really sweet setupyou’ve got here. I think when I retire next year, I’ll pull some strings inWashington and get me appointed to one of these ambassador gigs.” To which the ambassador, a veteranFSO, replies: “Youdo that ... andwhen I retire next year,maybe I’ll pull some strings inWashington and getmeappointedtocommandaNavyaircraft carrierbattlegroup.” This story,meant to illustrate the absurdity of considering vir- tually anyonewithpolitical “connections” tobe capableof assum- ing the responsibilities of serving as aUnited States ambassador, cuts close to the bone formany of us who devote our lives to the professional ForeignService. After all, we spendour careers labo- riously acquiring a nuanced under- standing of the challenges facing our countryabroad, developingour exper- tise on foreignnations, languages and cultures, learninghowtonegotiateand manage bilateral and multilateral relationshipswithother governments, cultivating our diplomatic skills and being groomed toperformthe jobof United States ambassador—only to face the reality that more than a third of the U.S. ambassador- ships around the world, including in some of the most impor- tant countries for U.S. interests, are handed out as perks to the president’s political cronies andcampaigncontributors, oftenwith no regard whatsoever for foreign-affairs qualifications. Most of us in the ForeignService have hadmixed experiences working for political-appointee ambassadors. Some of these appointees prove to be quick learners andmanage to do well as ambassadors, but a great many others do not. Some treat the job as little more than a status symbol and a social opportunity, hardly participating in the real work of managing the bilateral relationship. Some spend three years as ambassadorwithout ever bothering to learn the language of the country towhich they are assigned to represent theUnitedStates. Some spendmost of their time away from post. This should surprise noone. Someonewhohas never served inanembassy, neverdeliveredadiplomaticdemarche, neverdraft- eda reporting cable andneverworked in the foreign-policy arena is going toneed an awful lot of on-the-job training. Having been successful inanother profession—busi- ness entrepreneur, stock broker, tax lawyer, oil magnate, bank president, whatever — does not automatically qualify one to serve as a United States ambassador, anymore than a career as a ForeignService officer qualifies some- one to command a naval battle group. Even suggestingotherwise is an insult to our proud profession. We in the Foreign Service do specialized work that is painstakingly learnedover the course of a diplomatic career. What fewpeople realize is that this patronage systemis unique to theUnitedStates government. Sadly,we remain theonly coun- try in theworld that routinely treats its ambassadorships as rewards for the president’s friends and financial backers. It is no secret that many ambassadorships can nowbe purchased by the high- est bidder among campaign contrib- utors. Virtually everyother country in the world takes its ambassadorships seri- ously. The U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Mexico all reserve their most important diplo- matic postings — including their envoys to Washington — for their most experiencedprofessional diplomats. These countries’ ambas- sadors to theUnited States all have glittering resumés of achieve- ment in managing foreign-policy issues. Yet our ambassadors to every one of those countries are political appointees with no diplomatic background. What does this practice say about our foreign policy? What signal does it send to foreign governments? What does it reveal about the face America is presenting to an increasingly difficult and dangerous world? Because the ambassadorial patronage systemhas beena long- standing feature of American politics—and has been practiced equally by Democratic and Republican presidents — few have been willing to challenge it. Perhaps in the post-9/11 world of transformational diplomacy, in which our country is fighting a war in theMiddleEast and struggling tocontendwithwidespread negative images of theUnited States, it is time to reconsiderwho represents our country abroad as ambassadors. Perhaps it is time for one bold administration to stand up and put an end to the patronage system. V.P. VOICE: STATE BY STEVE KASHKETT The Great American Patronage System J U L Y - A UGU S T 2 0 0 6 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 67 A F S A N E W S Sadly, we remain the only country in the world that routinely treats its ambassadorships as rewards for the president’s friends and financial backers.