By Patricia H. Kushlis
Last July Nick Kralev, The Washington Times State Department correspondent reported on the status of Ambassadorial appointments since the beginning of the
Obama administration. He described the American Foreign Service Association’s (AFSA) unhappiness
with the ratio of political appointees to career officers and AFSA’s fears that
the percentages – then 26% political appointees with 11% yet to be named – would
tip even further in favor of the non-career officers. AFSA keeps a tally – so just check out its
website for the most recent figures.
They’re not exactly pretty.
This is not a new problem and not much has changed since the
summer. Unfortunately, administration
after administration regardless of political party seems to think that “cushy”
Ambassadorial positions complete with free house, staff, car and driver are fit
payment for campaign fundraising support – often as paybacks for “bundling
money.”
Cushy Paybacks Should Also Rest on Skills Appropriate for the Position
What they conveniently forget is
that most campaign fundraisers do not have the skills or the background to
manage embassies or represent US foreign policies abroad.
This may not be a problem in certain countries like Canada where –
if the appointee really does have the ear of the White House – that kind of
access is, I’m told, the single most important qualification. But from what I saw when I was working
abroad, too many political Ambassadors did not have the appropriate White House
numbers on their Blackberries or Rolodexes and as likely as not they also had
no requisite diplomatic skills that neared those of a trained professional.
A Few Qualifications Please
Personally, I am less concerned about a set ratio between
professional diplomats and political appointees (although I’d like to see fewer
of the latter) because not all professional diplomats have the skills to manage
missions abroad and/or are specialists in the language(s) and the culture(s) of
the people in the country of assignment.
Unfortunately, from my perspective, the problem has just worsened
with the incredible shrinking of the Foreign Service and the degrading of its
skills over the past twenty years.
But the bottom line for me is the competency of the
individual who is nominated for the position as the “President’s personal
representative.” And if the
administration won’t vet professional credentials carefully then the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee should.
Because you see, despite the fact that people nominated and
approved for Ambassadorships only need to attend a short course at the Foreign
Service Institute on how to be an Ambassador.
In reality, of course, this superficial training is just a drop in the
bucket: the real experience comes from a
lifetime of related professional experience: it begins with knowledge of the
country to which one is assigned as well as its culture, politics, economic
system, language and people as well as having succeeded in high level
management positions preferably in an Embassy or other institution abroad.
Nice, Needed but Still a Drop in the Bucket
Meanwhile, Congress’s recent approval of 750 more career
positions for the State Department and 300 for USAID is simply a drop in the
bucket when looking at the difficult tasks the Obama administration and the
Congress now demand that civilian foreign affairs specialists in the US government undertake.
Two decades of almost relentless downsizing and contracting
out, the needless and deleterious consolidation of two independent agencies
into the State Department in the late 1990s in the name of – well placating the
late Jesse Helms, the then isolationist Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee - and the total lack of oversight of a Human Resources
operation that has run amok does not bode well for success in fulfilling today's difficult
mission.
The Security Fetish Just Reinforces Al Qaeda's Desires
On top of that there were State's problems with
Blackwater's trigger-happy guards in Baghdad and more
recently the Armor Group’s photographs of lewd parties in the Kabul guard house.
Let’s also not forget the
continuing fortress Embassy construction that – as we and others have pointed
out to no avail – will simply do to America what Osama bin Laden and
Dr. Zawahari most desire: to make it far
more difficult for official US representatives to connect with the people in
whatever country these Crusader Castle Embassies are built. Of course, the continuing problems with visas - including inexcusable delays for appointments and shoddy treatment by contract agencies making those appointments - don't help America's image abroad either.
Unlike the Bush 43 administration, this administration does
not, at least, think the military can solve all our problems abroad. I’m unsure, however, that the American public
yet realizes that civilian foreign affairs professionals and technical experts are,
in fact, quietly filling positions in dangerous places abroad.
More employees – representing different agencies – not just
State and USAID are being assigned to these new positions daily. But as Alexis
Ludwig pointed out in an article in the December
2009 Foreign Service Journal, the Department is making it more difficult –
rather than less – for its officers to connect with the American public and tell their stories - good and bad.
So, let’s face it, how could those of us
taxpayers who are footing the bill for our government’s civilian and military efforts
overseas know the civilian side's accomplishments – not just learn about it's foibles as the next mismanagement
horror story appears in what’s left of the American media.