By Patricia H. Kushlis
Morton Abramowitz’s Washington Post Op Ed “Envoys for Change” has much of it right. Wouldn’t it be novel to have a requirement that all Americans appointed as US Chiefs of Mission abroad must be uniquely qualified for their jobs?
Here’s Abramowitz’ operative recommendation:
“Obama can publicly declare that he will not appoint ambassadors who have in effect secured their posts through financial contributions and who have little background to merit any such appointment. Indeed, he can further state that he will permit the appointment of non-career ambassadors -- usually 30 to 40 percent of our ambassadors -- only if they are uniquely appropriate for the job. Otherwise, ambassadorial positions will be reserved for experienced, capable career officials.”
In my view, basic qualifications should include familiarity with the country to which the person is assigned as well as the ability to communicate in its official language or languages. The appointee must also be able to run – or preside over - an Embassy and perhaps most importantly understand the contours and nuances of US foreign policy as well as explain, discuss and be an advocate for those same policies - agree with them or not.
Those also – in my experience – would be novel requirements for most political appointees.
Abramowitz was careful to distance himself from the American Foreign Service Association’s call for a specific percentage limitation of political Ambassadorial appointees and he also pointed out that there have been a number of highly competent political appointees in administrations gone by and listed three.
What unique qualifications?
Yet he failed to state what he thought the unique qualifications for an Ambassador should be. This to me is the op ed’s glaring weakness.
But can the career Foreign Service – in its currently decrepit state – be relied upon to fill additional Ambassadorial positions with career staff who possess the appropriate language and cultural competencies, managerial skills and knowledge of US foreign policy or is this why Abramowitz failed to list unique qualifications at all?
And if the Foreign Service can no longer do so, why not? Or has the Foreign Service been so weakened since the Cold War that the Department can no longer be counted upon to fill in those blanks? Or doesn't Abramowitz think that these basic diplomatic skills are needed for successful Ambassadors? It's hard for me to tell.
I have to wonder. The up-or-out promotion system that sent so many competent foreign language and culture specialists packing before their time especially during the 1990s because of the way promotions and downsizing were handled - may well now prove to become a major obstacle in finding enough skilled professionals for too many senior levels positions overseas. And then what?