Say you’re a U.S. ambassador to some foreign nation, and you have to tell that nation’s leaders: “Sorry that our president, Trump, is such an embarrassment, and MAGA is fascist, and Trump insults your nation all the time, and his policies and ideas are deplorable…”… an ambassador can’t make policies on his own, but what’s the maximum extent to which he can mollify things and try to smooth over US relations with that foreign nation, be it Canada, Mexico, Poland, UK, Germany, Australia, whomever? Just say nice but meaningless words? How much can he contradict Trump?
An ambassador isn’t an independent decision-maker; he or she is part of the State Department, and ultimately reports to the Secretary of State.
An ambassador, or any State Department employee, who goes directly against his or her government’s direction and edicts, will undoubtedly be relieved of their position quickly.
If an ambassador actually said anything like the quote you describe, basically completely insulting the rest of the U.S. government and its policies…the moment that that gets back to Washington (and it will), they’re gone.
An ambassador certainly can (and undoubtedly does) attempt to smooth things over, and act as a go-between for their assigned country with the U.S., but if the ambassador themselves strongly believes that their home government is strongly in the wrong, it places the ambassador between a rock and a hard place.
Of course, an ambassador would even have been chosen in the first place if the President had any reason to suspect they’d ever say things like that.
They might, however find ways to express similar sentiments in a more diplomatic way, that would be interpreted positively by both their boss and the people they’re talking to. Finding ways to say things diplomatically is, after all, rather the job description of an ambassador.
This is a good point. Many people who serve as U.S. ambassadors (as opposed to career members of the diplomatic corps, who might also serve as ambassadors) are political appointees.
Now the Ambassador is blethering on about how when Trump threatens to use economic force to annex Canada as the 51st state, it’s really a “term of endearment”.
Yeah, this is the kind of situation I had in mind. I would have figured most ambassadors not named Hoekstra would try their best to smooth things over and mend US-Canada image.
I also imagine that being US ambassador to Ukraine must be a very unpleasant job right now.
Hoekstra is, of course, a political appointee, and has no diplomatic experience (nor any actual diplomatic skills, apparently). He’s a Republican politician, and clearly a Trump toady; during Trump’s first term, he was the ambassador to the Netherlands, and said some dumb, undiplomatic (but very Trumpy) crap then, too.
Case study in how far an ambassador can go to mitigate his country’s stance toward a potential ally, and to influence a reluctant President’s policies: Walter Page.
Perhaps the best they can do to mitigate the negative reception of their own country’s actions is at the political level - explaining that the President is constrained to take these actions by domestic political considerations, a hostile press, opposition etc etc. But, I can assure you as a former car-dealer who is one of the Pres’s biggest campaign donors (as was Robert Nesen - ex-US Ambassador to Australia) deep down he is committed to the Slobovian alliance and recognises the years of friendship between the two countries, and will continue to do what he can behind the scenes … etc etc.
That might work once or twice until the next careering trainwreck policy reversal, where it is clear that he doesn’t even know where Slobovia is or cares how fast he shafts them.
In Australia’s case there are so many working links between the two governments at all levels that the ambassadorship is almost symbolic and they only get wheeled out occasionally.
Just checking as well - there has been a US ambassador to Aus on deck only for about 2/3 of the time since 2000, the rest of it has been in the hands of the embassy’s charge d’affairs. That’s how popular a gig to even a very nice, safe, English-speaking country is, so you can imagine the necessary zealotry required to volunteer to go somewhere actively hostile.
Ambassadors usually get leeway to make decisions. This was more important when your boss was not a phone call or email away but a long ship mail delivery followed by an equal wait for a response. The result of a disagreed decision includes recall of the ambassador, attempting to reverse and damage control, and so on.
Notable examples:
Private citizens resident in Hawaii overthrew Queen Liliʻuokalani and asked ambassador Stevens to provide Marines. President Grover Cleveland objected to these measures and had Stevens convicted. Congress formed their own commission and reversed it.
The Anglo-Irish treaty was signed in London and made the Irish Free State a Dominion of the UK. Many at home were not happy with the provisions and it led to a bloody civil war.
US Ambassador to Mexico Wilson sanctioned the violent coup of the democratically elected President Madero leading to much future instability. Incoming President Wilson (no relation), himself not a stranger to imperialism, was still appalled and dismissed him and refused to accept the new government. I don’t think the ambassador got much fallout after that.
In this particular case, I don’t except a very vocal ambassador would keep their job.
Yeah, I think the person in @FinsToTheLeft 's made-up quote would more accurately be the second person, if it were meant to reflect Ambassador Hoekstra’s seeming attitude: “He [Trump] only hits you [Canada] because he loves you so much.”
I quickly found a friendly recent statement, by a senior diplomat in a U.S. embassy, strongly implying that Biden won the 2020 U.S. election. (It says that elections in the host country, like the U.S, have long been free and fair.)
There must be others.
I may be being paranoid here, but I do not want to give a link, or name the country, for fear of getting a decent normie diplomat in trouble.
The larger point is that if and until Trump completely consolidates power, there will be some diplomats going against the stance of the president, but it will be done in a subtle way. A year from now, it will be less common to see it in public.
I can see many ambassadors privately agreeing with host national leaders concerning U.S. tariff policy, while publicly defending Trump.