From what I’ve heard from the news media, most American ambassadors to other countries are chosen as a sort of political reward for services during an administration or campaign, which means we get ambassadors who know nothing about the country they’re sent to, and perhaps don’t even speak the language.
Are any ambassadors chosen for merit on their professional diplomatic accomplishments? Is it possible for someone to work their way up from the bottom ranks of the State Dept. to an ambassadorship?
Do any other countries use the same system for choosing ambassadors, or are they all foriegn service professionals?
Working overseas, mainly in Africa, has given me the opportunity of dealing with a couple of US Ambassadors. Generally the Ambassadors I have worked with have been career Foreign Service Officers who have worked themselves up thru the system. Quite a few of these folks were appointed with political considerations as well. While I don’t consider myself an Ambassador expert I would say that all have done at least an acceptable job and a few were outstanding individuals who were/are strong advocates for democratic principles, humanitarians willing to use their influence and small resources to respond to public health emergencies [my area of expertise], and all around good folks. I guess I could say that the quality of American Ambassadors overseas are like any other profession [there are total jerks, common average folk and a few visionaries who use their jobs to make something better.
I will grant you that political appointees have a better chance of being real assholes: one comes to mind in particular. He was a political appointee [his mom contributed to the Republican Presidential campaign in the 80s] who was given the post of Peace Corps Director. He was finally declared personna non grata and kicked out, but after he had done a bunch of stupid illegal acts.
I do find a grain of truth in some of the portrayals of amer diplomates in the movies to be right on the button; low level bureaucratic jerks who don’t speak the language, refuse to “get out and meet the folks”, who assume that they are all powerful, a strong sense of “I’m better than you are”, petty and self serving. I guess these assholes get weeded out by immaturity and lack of leadership qualities…
A lot depends on the perceived importance of a country. A rich-but-dimwitted party member who’s made big cash contributions to a campaign may well be rewarded with an appointment to be ambassador of a small, seemingly unimportant nation. But NO President of either party is going to take foolish chances with an important country.
So… a wealthy contributor may find himself Ambassador to Luxembourg. But a serious, expereinced professional diplomat will be our liaison to Russia, China, etc.
Ambassadors can also be political exiles, after a fashion. Governments can use diplomatic postings to get rid of long-serving, and/or potentially troublesome, politicians (from the government’s own party, natch), “put them out to pasture” in other words.
The most recent case is that of former New Zealand Prime Minister Jim Bolger, now NZ Ambassador to the US.
His party (in govt at the time) feared a significant drop in the polls, and thus opted for a change of leadership. It was quick, largely unexpected, and the fact that they waited until he was out of the country, made it look just a tad treacherous.
Elections were two years away, if he stayed his presence might serve as a nasty reminder of this treachery to voters. Four months after his dumping, Bolger’s appointment was announced, and by the end of 1998, he was in Washington. With one year to go until election time.
This is not a regular occurence, of course, and people aren’t forced to take up the posts at gunpoint. The posts are real honours, and may often be suggested or requested by the politicians themselves.