Given your apparent knowledge, how concerning do you think it was/is that so many diplomatic posts, and in relevant countries, were unfilled during the Trump (and possibly Biden) administrations? Did this lapse cause significant difficulties with foreign relations, the ability of the State Department to fulfill its mandate or other political or perception problems?
For some of them it’s just the ability to schmooze with rich people.
Not filling ambassadorial posts was a bad ‘optics’ move and could lead to problems where there is a lack of high level engagement with the host nation but it has relatively little impact upon day to day operations of embassies and consulates. I think the major problem with the Trump administration on foreign policy was less not having ambassadors to represent it than just not having a coherent foreign policy to begin with (other than tariff ‘trade wars’, ‘quid pro quo’, and Trump sucking up to authoritarian ‘strongman’ leaders). The Department of State under Biden has done a better job in rebuilding some relationships but I think the administration’s early focus was on domestic issues for obvious reasons and only turned outward with imminent and potential threats to Ukraine and Taiwan.
Of course, much of US policy is set outside of the purview of the Department of State. The unilateral decision to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) resulting in the collapse of the so-called “Iran Nuclear Deal”, the alarming tit-for-tat between Trump and Kim Jong-un, the below-the-table discussions with Putin and other international leaders, and so forth under Trump were all done outside of the normal State Department framework, and I have to imagine that when Tex Oilman was summarily fired from Secretary of State by tweet while on the shitter it had to be an immense relief because it was clear that Trump wasn’t listening to or using him in any way. (That Tillerson ended essentially being the hardest working Trump cabinet member and the one that showed the most integrity tells you just how low that bar was.)
And of course, much of our ‘foreign policy’ is conducted by thoroughly covert means, either by proxy effort, covert/drone warfare, or surreptitious political intervention in the internal affairs of other nations; and this is not something new that just started happening in the last few years. Christopher Boyce went to prison for selling classified information to the Soviet Union, but the information he was selling included direct evidence that the United States had intervened in the internal politics of Australia—a democratic nation and ally—in order to remove Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister over his plan to close US military installations and SIGINT ‘listening posts’ in Australia. And that is pretty much the least benevolent thing the United States has done covertly in interfering in internal politics of sovereign nations.
Stranger
The year I applied, I was one of 40,000 people who took the exam.
I was one of 14,000 people who were interviewed.
For 250 openings.
Um, what is this post responding too? The only other mention of “Russia” is this thread doesn’t refer to any particular ambassador. If it is referring to my post about an old ambassador to the USSR, note!
------
Certain countries like Fiji are often used as dumping grounds for unqualified donors getting an ambassadorship to pad their resumes. These countries are not happy about this.
It’s in response to Dewey_Finn . There is a link on the top right of Martin_Hyde’s post.
Yes, but Ivana (senior) did not go by Ivanka, so the Ivana vs Ivanka convention keeps it clear who was who.
Actually, the ambassador to Fiji was kind enough to respond directly to a discussion we had here six years ago: