Political appointments have proper place in foreign service

Like each of his predecessors, President Obama is being charged with appointing political allies and fundraisers to represent our nation as ambassadors.

This issue is as old as the Republic, though the contemporary challenge relates as much to popular skepticism about the huge amounts of money in politics as it does to the practice of appointing non-career citizens to these diplomatic jobs.

As leader of the State Department transition team in 1992, I observed the phenomenon close up. My past also includes a foreign service career and three presidential appointments under two presidents. My perspective is that the debate has been excessively one dimensional. It also often has been unfair to most of those who have received political appointments after a very thorough vetting process.

The argument in favor of career diplomats is that they have extensive multicultural experience and language skills, they know the art of diplomacy, and they understand the functions of a complex embassy environment. The best career officers also have mastered the challenge of representing U.S. administrations that have shifted policy positions, sometimes rather dramatically.

The foreign policy of President Ronald Reagan was quite different from that of President Jimmy Carter, for example, and the policies of President Obama contrast conspicuously with those of President George W. Bush. Through it all, the professionals of the foreign service act as the balance wheel, the institutional memory. They often help the country explain itself to bewildered foreigners.

Political appointees, on the other hand, are reflections of the changing political scene. They have been in the trenches with the new president during long campaigns, a democratic process that never fails to capture the attention of our foreign friends. They also reflect the pluralism of our society, in most cases the high standards of professions as diverse as business, the law, academia or science.

The vetting process is extensive. It includes an FBI investigation and White House counsel interviews that explore every public utterance of the nominee.

Then the Senate Foreign Relations Committee puts the candidates through even more rigorous questions designed to determine political vulnerability. The majority party in the confirmation process wants to know whether the other party has the evidence to embarrass the president over the appointment.

The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee also has the power to decide whether to allow a nomination to proceed to a hearing and a vote.

In 1999, I was the president's nominee to be ambassador to Brazil. In my capacity as administrator of USAID, I had spoken out against legislation sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms that would have reorganized the foreign affairs agencies. I was doing my job, defending the administration's position. But Helms, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, apparently believed I had thwarted his efforts.

Helms used his prerogative to block a hearing. I waited six long months, then withdrew. When I left Washington, Helms publicly wished me well. I take solace that I was not his only victim.

When a nominee emerges through this process as a Senate confirmed ambassador, it must then be frustrating to read that somehow one's appointment is tainted because of legitimate and legal participation in the political process.

This may be a reflection of our broader concern about the influence of money in politics, but it seems unfair to transfer this concern indiscriminately to our political ambassadors.

We often forget that it is against the law for a White House to "sell ambassadorships" or to offer such a position in exchange for monetary contributions to a candidate.

In fact, in one of the relatively few convictions during the Nixon administration's Watergate crisis, the president's lawyer, Herbert Kalmbach, was imprisoned for "selling" ambassadorships to potential Nixon donors. It was later learned that Kalmbach was taking his orders from Peter Flanagan, one of Richard Nixon's top White House aides.

When Flanagan was nominated by President Gerald Ford to be ambassador to Spain, Kalmbach's secret testimony to this effect -- under oath before the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment process -- was revealed by columnist Robert Novak. Flanagan withdrew a few days later.

The Kalmbach-Flanagan lesson has not been forgotten in Washington. Nonetheless, presidents of each political party always will favor individuals they feel confident are loyal and will represent their values. Foreign governments generally appreciate this so long as the ambassador is competent. This has not always been the case.

We have experienced our share of duds, people who have in some cases embarrassed the United States. I think of the ambassador to Romania a few years back, a former used-car salesman who was selected in part because he spoke the language. It might have been better if no one in Romania had been able to understand him.

Then there was the ambassador who routinely fell asleep while entertaining, the victim of a strong appetite for alcohol. These are exceptions, but the damage done far outlives the tenure of these sad cases.

To further strengthen the process, in addition to the vetting procedure we now employ, I believe we should ask an organization that has unquestioned professional standing to review potential nominees.

To diplomacy, the American Academy for Diplomacy is what the American Bar Association is to the law. This academy, made up of former ambassadors and high-level officials, should set up a nonpartisan panel that can review a potential candidate's professional record using agreed-upon standards. The results of this review could be provided to the White House as part of the vetting process.

Political ambassadors date back to Franklin and Jefferson. They include giants like David Bruce, Sol Linowitz, Geri Joseph and Harlan Cleveland, successes in other fields and superb reflections of both our pluralist society and our unique political system.

The political appointment should be used sparingly -- rarely over 25 percent of the total -- and, when used, there should be no doubt of the competency of the person selected. Representing one's nation is a privilege to be reserved for the very best Americans.

----

J. Brian Atwood, dean of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute, was a career Foreign Service officer from 1966 to 1972, serving in the Ivory Coast and Spain. He was assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration and undersecretary of state and administrator of USAID in the Clinton administration.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlideshowPrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide