Ambassadorship for Sale

While many presidents have used diplomatic appointments to return political favors, the trend has increased under Obama — almost 41 percent of Obama’s second term nominations have been political, coming from outside the ranks of career Foreign Service Officers. Obama has increasingly come under fire from both sides of the political aisle over what many see as a sequence of foreign policy failures. Relationships with allies have deteriorated, Western conflict with Russia has reached a post-Cold War high and civil wars in Iraq and Syria seem to be spiraling out of control. One of the first steps Obama must take to turn around his foreign policy record is to appoint competent ambassadors who can manage these relationships.

According to the U.S. State Department, the ambassador is the “President’s highest-ranking representative to a specific nation.” As chief of mission, they are responsible for every government agency that operates out of the embassy and coordinates the activities of all U.S. personnel in that country. In certain countries, particularly close allies, ambassadors are also responsible for upholding less formal diplomatic rites and traditions. Ambassadors in some countries, like Britain and France, are expected to host extravagantly expensive dinners and parties for other diplomats, foreign journalists and local officials. This has become one justification for appointing rich donors to ambassadorships in countries with strong diplomatic traditions. Because the government budget does not cover all of these expenses much of them become the ambassador’s personal responsibility. Some ambassadors personally spend over $1 million a year on entertaining.

To be appointed as an ambassador, it usually isn’t enough to make traditional personal political donations. Many appointees are so called “bundlers”, who have raised money from various donors that is then delivered to the campaign in a “bundle”. The donations delivered by the bundlers often reach seven figures. Exact numbers for bundles are hard to come by as candidates usually only release the names and amounts in broad ranges. Political nominees are also often friends of the president, academics or corporate executives.

Ambassadors don’t only receive a prestigious title and, in theory, foreign policy power, but they also receive material perks. Ambassadors in rich countries live in elaborate houses and compounds, and have the opportunity to host parties with celebrities and powerful politicians. The ambassador to Italy, John R. Phillips, raised more than $500,000 for Obama, and his wife was a White House communications director. They now enjoy a 16th-century Italian villa with a three-story, 5000 bottle wine cellar. It’s no wonder that ambassadorship posts can act as an inducement for big-time campaign donors.

The practice of appointing political donors as ambassadors might be more acceptable if the appointees, while having little to no diplomacy experience, had deep personal or business connections to their destination country. Some do, but many Obama appointees seemingly possess embarrassingly little knowledge of U.S. interests or policies.

The current nominee for ambassador to Norway, George Tsunis, damaged U.S. relations before even taking his post. He testified at his nomination hearing that he had never been to Norway, incorrectly identified the country’s political system as presidential (it’s a parliamentary monarchy) and referred to one of the parties in the coalition government as a radical “fringe element” that “spewed hatred,” provoking anger in Oslo. Tsunis has personally donated more than $800,000 to Democratic causes since 2008 and raised at least $500,000 from others.

While other countries send their top diplomats abroad, the US sends rich donors with deplorably little knowledge about their host country.[/dropcap] Even nominees to countries where ambassadors will need to play much more than a ceremonial role, such as China, have shown dismal knowledge of the country to which they are destined. On paper, Max Baucus seems like a reasonable diplomatic nominee: He served in the Senate for 36 years, and was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. However, during his confirmation hearing earlier this year, he admitted that he was “no real expert on China” and was unable to answer a basic question about China’s creation of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the sea between it and Japan, a vitally important issue in current Asian-American foreign relations. Remarkably, Baucus was confirmed.

More stories abound. The as-of-yet unconfirmed ambassador to Hungary, Colleen Bell, could not name any U.S. interests in the region more specific than “the security relationship and also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade (sic).” Bell is a television producer with few qualifications other than being a top Obama fundraiser. The former ambassador to Luxembourg, Cynthia Stroum, an Obama bundler who raised over $800,000 in 2008, resigned in January 2011 immediately before the release of a scathing report by the Inspector General that put the personal blame on her for many of the embassy’s problems. In 2012, Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine, who created the Runway to Win fashion line that raised over $40 million for Obama’s 2012 campaign, was considered a front-runner for the ambassadorship to Great Britain or France.

Nonetheless, there have been some successful political appointees. Charles Rivkin, the ambassador to France during Obama’s first term and now an Assistant Secretary of State, raised more than $500,000 for the president’s 2008 campaign. He has been lauded on both sides of the Atlantic for developing close ties in Paris and raising Foreign Service morale. Due to prior experience, some political ambassadors are more effective than others.  Rivkin, for example, had long standing connections with France. While he was not a career Foreign Service member, he was fluent in French and lived in the country prior to his appointment.  Rivkin also had a long business career with strong ties to the French media. Not all political appointees are created equal, and some, like Rivkin, certainly do have more qualifications than others, even if they are not in the Foreign Service.

It is true that most political ambassadors do benefit from the knowledge of experienced deputies from the career Foreign Service. These deputies usually have strong relationships with the country and can help the ambassador navigate unfamiliar territory. Additionally, in many Western European countries, the United States has longstanding relationships aside from the ambassadorship. But the fact remains that the ambassador is the first American contact in a country and is considered the personal representative of the President — giving the post significant symbolic value that should not be underestimated. While an ambassador alone usually will not be able to ruin a relationship with an ally, they can harm it. In times of crisis, damage control falls to them. After the revelation that the NSA had monitored German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone, for example, it was up to the U.S. ambassador to provide an explanation.

The President isn’t fully to blame for the use of ambassadorship appointments to return political favors. As the Senate’s confirmations of political appointees demonstrate, Congress has largely accepted the practice of appointing donors and political friends to key Foreign Service positions. Both the executive branch and the legislative branch have seemingly ignored the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which explicitly states that “contribution to political campaigns should not be a factor” in presidential nominations. Additionally, ambassadors should have “useful knowledge of the language … and understanding of the history, the culture, the economic and political institutions, and the interests of that country.” While some political appointees may meet these standards, many fall short and Congress is not doing it’s part to hold the executive responsible.

Previously, our relationships with Western European countries were strong enough that political ambassadors could be tolerated. However, with the fallout of the NSA scandal, continued resentment of what many see as U.S. imperialism in the Middle East, a perilously balanced economic recovery and an aggressive neighbor in Russia, these relationships can no longer be taken for granted. While other countries send their top diplomats to the United States, the United States sends rich donors with deplorably little knowledge about their host country. The unbalanced relationship sends a powerful message of arrogance and disrespect to allies. If the United States wants to retain its influential role in world politics, economic and military power is not enough. The United States needs talented and experienced diplomats to negotiate relationships and further American interests abroad.

It’s hard to fault Obama for continuing the practice. It has become an executive tradition, and political bundlers, who are increasingly vital for winning elections, have come to expect perks. However, Obama campaigned on the promise of a new, more transparent Washington. In regards to diplomacy this has yet to happen. Obama, and his successor in 2016, can and should do better. With two long years remaining, it’s not too late for Obama to change his track record. But it will take a willpower and defiance of political convention that Obama has yet to convincingly demonstrate.