An article in this week’s Economist claims the US is missing more than one third of its ambassadors. There is no American ambassador in Berlin, London, Rome, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, India, Thailand, South Korea or the Philippines. (Nor Ukraine amid 2019 skullduggery).
But this comes at a time of increasing dysfunction when alliances are needed to gain soft power and undercut rivals. The problem seems to be, in part, obstructionism and slowness in submitting names. Limited Senate time prioritizes appointing domestic judges over international representatives. Senators like Cruz, Rubio and Hawley have (it is said) blocked dozens of nominations to posture and extract concessions.
But at what point is this damage irreversible? At what point does it makes foul-ups inevitable? Is there a way forward here, or just ever increasing obstruction?
Wouldn’t it be worthwhile for the Democrats to call more attention to this?
Is it important the Senate formally confirm diplomats?
What needs to happen for the system to better function?
Is it even important their are diplomats or have things changed, and other ambassadors like business representatives have replaced them?
Is the business world damaged or upset by this state of affairs? One thinks that they would see national ambassadors as a tool to help further and protect their interests. Not so?
1. Is this state sustainable? Perhaps yes but certainly not desirable. It has been more than a year now and any ill effects haven’t been noticed by the general public.
2. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile for the Democrats to call more attention to this? One would think so, but in today’s tribal politics I don’t see this moving the national needle.
3. Is it important the Senate formally confirm diplomats? I think it is and in normal times would be done in the weeks following inauguration.
4. What needs to happen for the system to better function? Senate rules have to change and/or Republicans have to accept that when a Democrat wins, he/she gets to run a fully functioning govenment.
5. Is it even important their are diplomats or have things changed, and other ambassadors like business representatives have replaced them? I think so, particularly with nations with significant trade relations and/or potential military allies or adversaries.
6. Is the business world damaged or upset by this state of affairs? One thinks that they would see national ambassadors as a tool to help further and protect their interests. Not so? I think there is potential damage to businesses when major ambassadorships are unfilled, but perhaps not enough for them to turn up the heat on the party out of power.
The ambassadorships that need senate confirmation are political appointments, and often go to the president’s cronies and campaign donors. Most of the actual work is done by Foreign Service officers, who will do the job regardless of which party is in the White House. The career bureaucrats at an embassy often view the official Ambassador as a temporary figurehead, who may be more of a hindrance than a help to their work.
Why is it important? In a lot of countries there’s no such constitutinal requirment. The government in power appoints the people they want to the positions and let them get to work. What’s the value-add of the Senate process?
I think it would add weight to what the diplomat tells the people he’s dealing with if he has been confirmed and represents the US, including the party not in power.
Adds naught but ambiguity.
The ambassador is the diplomatic conduit between two governments.
The US consider the AUS ambassador to the US to be the local representative of the Australian government. Not representing Australia with some sort of cross-partisan power base in their own right. We would follow precisely the same protocols.
If say the AUS federal government has an issue with some action of the US government they will call in the US ambassador to explain. The views of the minority US party (and the AUS opposition party for that matter) don’t come into it.
Elsewise you get an ambassador confirmed by a GOP Senate being equivocal, even contradictory, on the actions of a DEM White House. Which would be grounds for an immediate recall.
The views of the various US ambassadors should be in lockstep with the views of the US administration.
I think it’s very sustainable. We have diplomats in all of these countries, they just don’t have the title of ambassador. One of the consequences of the increasing gridlock in the Senate is that more and more jobs are filled by acting officials on a semi-permanent basis. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has been led by an acting director for all but two years of the last 16.
When there are ruffled feelings (such as in France regarding the US and Australia), to what extent might these be caused by insufficient staff or lack of ambassadors? There is a difference between a long-term interim and having enough staff to manage. A lack of ambassadors may or may not be a major problem in peaceful times in insignificant countries. But it implies the presence of other problems, a lack of international focus, and a degree of gridlock hard to understand or praise.
It also sends the message that the United States doesn’t care enough about another country to even bother sending an ambassador. Interim place-holders are all the US can manage to do. It’s disrespectful.
This seems to be an American tradition - ambassadors being political appointees, recruited externally (sometimes celebrities) and serving as figureheads, while the actual day-to-day work of the embassy is run by career bureaucrats. In many other countries, the tradition is a different one: Ambassadors are themselves career bureaucrats who, after graduation, joined the foreign service of their country and then rose up in the ranks. They serve both as representatives of their home country in the host country and as day-to-day managers of the embassy they’re in charge of.
I’d be willing to take one of the smaller or less important countries, Tuva or Mongolia would be interesting [always did want to go to Ulan Bator for the Ghengis Khan festival =) ]
Presumably the donation to the governing party that would be required to secure the appointment to Ulan Bator would be considerably smaller than the donation required to secure appointment to, say, Paris or Rome. You should enquire about prices — you may find there are some good deals available on the less fashionable capitals!
Obviously its possible their minds were made up and this was inevitable, but if there was any chance of getting Germany’s cooperation with efforts to support Ukraine, not having a US ambassador there can’t have helped.
That’s the beauty of the separation of powers! You might have to pay the presidential administration to nominate you, and the majority party in the Senate to confirm your nomination.
I think other countries generally understand that the typical paralysis in appointing ambassadors following a change of administration is a consequence of the US’s internal political dysfunction, and is not directed at them.