The Foreign Service Journal, September 2009

12 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 9 break with the old practice of appoint- ing prominent donors as ambassadors. The letter was not so radical as to de- mand total elimination of political ap- pointments, but suggested allocating only 10 percent of ambassadorial posi- tions to donors, as opposed to the typ- ical 30 percent ( www.academyofdip lomacy.org/media/Ambassadorial_ Qualifications_Sen_Obama_6_200 8.pdf ). President Obama acknowledged that he would give some posts to cam- paign supporters, but he also implied that he might consider following the AAD proposal. However, a recent wave of ambassadorial appointments for campaign financiers has led many to fear that Obama will soon exceed a 30/70 arrangement — a development that has irritated not only Foreign Service personnel, but the nations re- ceiving those ambassadors, as well ( www.washingtontimes.com/news/ 2009/jul/10/career-diplomats-save- share-of-postings /). Foreign Service officers voiced their concerns to Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills; and she, in turn, passed them along to the Secre- tary and White House. In response, Obama administration officials have indicated that they will at least uphold the 30/70 norm. However, as one French newspaper sarcastically com- mented, even that result would mean “No ‘change you can believe in’ for Obama.” With 26 percent of posts given to donors and 11 percent vacant as of this writing, Obama still has time to re- deem himself —even if only to shift to a 25/75 ratio. It is worth noting that he has nominated Foreign Service mem- bers, former or current, as chiefs of mission for many hot spots, including India, China, Brazil, Kosovo and Mex- ico. Additionally, despite an unfortu- nate joke by White House Press Sec- retary Robert Gibbs that Louis Sus- man is qualified to be the ambassador to the United Kingdom because “he speaks English,” many of Obama’s picks are indeed qualified people. Still, qualified as donors may be, many worry about the practice of send- ing them to such prominent nations ( www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/ opinion/15ihtedraleigh.1981739. html?_r=1 ). Former President Bill Clinton, for instance, often relegated even his qualified donor appointees to more backwater locales ( www.wash ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2009/06/09/AR2009060903 304.html?nav=emailpage ). But in fact, donors can often capi- talize on their fame, networking skills and direct access to the president to the benefit and advantage of their mis- sion ( www.politico.com/news/stor ies/0609/23362_Page2.html ). Like- wise, the appointment of a Foreign Service professional does not neces- sarily ensure competency or accept- ance, as may be seen in Mexico’s resentment at having an expert on failed states assigned as its ambassador ( www.mexidata.info/id2289.html ) . Check the American Foreign Serv- ice Association’s list of ambassadors for periodic updates on appointees ( www.afsa.org/ambassadors.doc ) . The U.S. and the Sea of Green Few doubts remain that the June 13 Iranian elections, which gave two- thirds of the vote to incumbent Presi- dent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were rigged to some degree. Despite waves of protest over the election results, there is also little doubt that he will re- tain his seat for a second term. The extraordinary show of brutality that affirmed the stranglehold of au- thoritarian forces over Iran notwith- standing, recent events have revealed deep cracks within the Iranian state, which may be of diplomatic advantage to Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the United States. Despite their best efforts to crack down on dissident movements, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its hired Basij militias have only pushed street demonstrators toward civil disobedience and cyberwarfare, with no end in sight. Though the gov- ernment continues to try to limit media exposure of the peacefully subversive acts of protestors, enough coverage reaches the outside world to seriously damage its image of control ( http:// schema-root.org/region/middle_ east/iran/resistance/ ). Even the pro- testers have been able to overcome the regime’s Internet regulations and con- tinue to stream out live accounts of their actions ( www.squidoo.com/iran election ). Granted, these correspondences must be taken with a grain of salt, but their importance cannot be dismissed. Twitter updates, in particular, are im- plicated in helping the dissident move- ments survive initial state crackdowns. For this, Iranians give credit to the State Department, which is said to have convinced Twitter staff to delay scheduled maintenance that would have broken lines of internal and ex- ternal communication in the infancy of the resistance ( www.washington post.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2009/06/16/AR2009061603391. html ). Recognizing both the importance of this medium and its potential to misin- form, many Iran watchers have re- sponded by creating filtered sites displaying only substantiated, rep- C Y B E R N O T E S