The Foreign Service Journal, October 2009

The continuing debate over non-career ambassadorial ap- pointments should focus on the real issues involved: the pressing need for skillful diplo- macy in the 21st century; the experience and skills required to be an effective ambassador; and the impact of reserving 85 percent of am- bassadorial appointments to Group of Seven countries, and 58 percent of those to G-20 capitals, over the last 40 years for political appointees. The expansion of globalization has enhanced rather than diminished the importance of diplomacy as a tool for regulating and promoting beneficial co- operation among nations. With that in mind, President Obama and Secretary Clinton have called for strengthening the Department of State, which is sup- posed to be our premier foreign policy institution and the only one charged with institutional responsibility for diplo- matic service. But how does this rheto- ric square with the reality that the most senior positions at State, abroad and at home, continue to be filled by political appointees? Such practices demon- strate little regard for how U.S. diplo- macy works. They also do serious, long- term damage to the integrity, morale and professionalism of the institution. A number of recent studies address the degraded quality and ca- pacity of the State Depart- ment and propose remedies. They all concur that the For- eign Service must do a better job of attracting, developing and retaining top talent. But this goal cannot be met by continuing the practice of reservingmost of the key posts abroad, as well as an increasing number of senior leadership positions in the department, for non-career ap- pointees who are not accountable for their performance. That practice low- ers professional standards and politicizes the culture of the institution, making it more difficult to recognize and reward merit. To be sure, accomplished non-career individuals can be assets as chiefs of mis- sion—as long as it is recognized that the institution’s strength fundamentally rests on the quality and motivation of its pro- fessional cadre. The complexity of con- temporary diplomacy places a premium on knowledgeable people with a long- term commitment to managing the dif- ficult foreign policy challenges before us, and the knowledge, skills and experience to do it adroitly. It is worth noting that the diplomatic services of the G-7 and G-20 already have structures suggesting that they un- derstand this. Can we really afford to have a less strong professional diplo- matic service than do China, Russia, Japan, India and Brazil, not to mention a number of our traditional allies in Eu- rope? Shouldwe not aim for a fully pro- fessional diplomatic service with clear standards for demonstrating successful performance, as is required of the coun- try’s senior military officers? With this in mind, the president’s prerogative to appoint ambassadors, and the Senate’s responsibility to confirm them, should both be leveraged to strengthen the State Department. All diplomatic appointments must be based on relevant experience, exceptional qualifications and personal distinction. In particular, the de facto sale of am- bassadorships should stop. To ensure a robust institutional infrastructure capa- ble of developing the highly skilled and motivated diplomatic service that our nation requires, there should be a ceiling on the number of non-career appoint- ments. (In 1980 the late Senator Char- lesMathias suggested a 15-percent cap.) Anew leadership commitment to ap- pointing knowledgeable and experienc- ed career officers to important posi- tions overseas and inWashington, D.C., would be an important step toward im- proving the professionalism, institutional memory, continuity and credibility of our diplomatic service. Bipartisan con- sensus on these points would go a long way toward strengthening the StateDe- partment so it can conduct the diplo- macy needed to better protect and promote U.S. interests in a complex, fast-changing global environment. ■ Susan R. Johnson is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS Diplomacy and Patronage Don’t Mix B Y S USAN R. J OHNSON O C T O B E R 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5