The Foreign Service Journal, November 2003

A Modern Ambassador In Argentina, Italy and India, Bunker played the role of a modern American ambassador far more in the manner of a seasoned career professional than a talented amateur. He saw his job, correctly, as an exer- cise in state-to-state relations, not as an opportunity to promote his own ideas or a popularity contest. This meant interpreting for Washington the motives and concerns of his host government, especially as these policies affected U.S. interests. Equally important, it meant promot- ing and explaining U.S. global, regional, and bilateral policies in ways that made them acceptable or at least plausible to his hosts. He carried out both these functions effectively, drawing on his skill in developing strong professional relations with the local leadership. In his sober, elegant way, Bunker made friends for America. He trav- eled a good deal outside national capitals and got to know something of his host countries. But his was a rather detached and impersonal style. He did not see himself as a “cultural bridge,” as some other suc- cessful ambassadors have, and developed only a limited interest in his host countries’ culture, tradi- tions, and history. Bunker brought his business expe- rience to the management of his embassies and also used it to de- demonize modern capitalism among those who considered multinational business organizations immoral and dangerous. He followed a relaxed management style, giving his deputies responsibility for the day-to- day operation of his missions and interfering relatively little in the work of individual embassy offices. He recognized that public affairs and economic assistance had come to stay as important mission functions. Although his public style was rather formal, he tried with consid- erable success to reach out to differ- ent sections of society. He had no interest in “going native.” His char- acter and his deep roots in American life helped make him an excellent spokesman for the United States. Bunker’s relationship with the Washington bureaucracy was strong and mutually supportive. He had little interest in the gamesmanship familiar in the corridors of the State Department and elsewhere in Washington. His effectiveness on Capitol Hill dated back to his years as a spokesman for the sugar industry and he was always well regarded there. Bunker largely accepted the objectives and strategy of U.S. policy toward the countries in which he served. His recommendations to Washington were mainly designed to advance those policies, not to chal- lenge them, and he had few original proposals to offer on broader issues. In Italy and India, countries with which the United States enjoyed friendly relations, his policy recom- mendations often included calls for greater economic assistance and, in India as its rift with China deepened, for provision of military hardware. This reflected the “clientitis” that afflicted many ambassadors in those Cold War days, and still does. But Bunker kept such special pleading within limits, and it did not under- mine his credibility in Washington. He displayed no special concern about domestic political issues in the countries in which he served except as they demonstrably affected U.S. interests, especially in the economic development sphere. In Italy and India, he shared Washington’s satisfaction with the existing political dispensation and made only margin- al efforts to tinker with it. But this diffidence did not rule out clandes- tine efforts to thwart local commu- nist parties. He unapologetically supported such moves as other American diplomats did in the Cold War. A Hawk in Vietnam Bunker’s role in Saigon differed sharply from the ones he played in Buenos Aires, Rome and New Delhi. It had to. U.S. involvement in Vietnam was so momentous and comprehen- sive that the conventional diplomatic business American embassies else- where perform was inadequate for U.S. purposes. Bunker would have shunned the title of American procon- sul or viceroy. But, in effect, that was what he was in Saigon. His policy preferences and rec- ommendations on Vietnam policy made Bunker one of the most out- spoken hawks on the war in the top ranks of the U.S. government. His advice to Washington often reflected his view that the war should be waged more vigorously, especially through actions designed to choke off the movement of troops and sup- plies through privileged sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia. Bunker’s major influence on Vietnam policy was most evident in his first year in Saigon. President Johnson carefully read his special weekly messages. As good ambas- 40 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 3 Bunker brought to his assignments integrity, creativity, realism, precision, and an ability to step into the shoes of his negotiating partners and understand their priorities.