PRESIDENT’S VIEWS
Diplomacy and Patronage Don’t Mix
BY SUSAN R. JOHNSON
The continuing debate over
non-career ambassadorial appointments should focus on
the real issues involved: the
pressing need for skillful diplomacy in the 21st century; the
experience and skills required
to be an effective ambassador; and the
impact of reserving 85 percent of ambassadorial appointments to Group of
Seven countries, and 58 percent of those
to G- 20 capitals, over the last 40 years
for political appointees.
The expansion of globalization has
enhanced rather than diminished the
importance of diplomacy as a tool for
regulating and promoting beneficial cooperation among nations. With that in
mind, President Obama and Secretary
Clinton have called for strengthening
the Department of State, which is supposed to be our premier foreign policy
institution and the only one charged
with institutional responsibility for diplomatic service. But how does this rhetoric square with the reality that the most
senior positions at State, abroad and at
home, continue to be filled by political
appointees? Such practices demonstrate little regard for how U.S. diplomacy works. They also do serious, long-term damage to the integrity, morale
and professionalism of the institution.
A number of recent studies address
Susan R. Johnson is the president of the
American Foreign Service Association.
the degraded quality and capacity of the State Department and propose remedies.
They all concur that the Foreign Service must do a better
job of attracting, developing
and retaining top talent. But
this goal cannot be met by continuing
the practice of reserving most of the key
posts abroad, as well as an increasing
number of senior leadership positions in
the department, for non-career appointees who are not accountable for
their performance. That practice lowers professional standards and politicizes
the culture of the institution, making it
more difficult to recognize and reward
merit.
To be sure, accomplished non-career
individuals can be assets as chiefs of mission — as long as it is recognized that the
institution’s strength fundamentally rests
on the quality and motivation of its
professional cadre. The complexity of contemporary diplomacy places a premium
on knowledgeable people with a long-term commitment to managing the difficult foreign policy challenges before us,
and the knowledge, skills and experience
to do it adroitly.
It is worth noting that the diplomatic
services of the G- 7 and G- 20 already
have structures suggesting that they understand this. Can we really afford to
have a less strong professional diplomatic service than do China, Russia,
Japan, India and Brazil, not to mention
a number of our traditional allies in Europe? Should we not aim for a fully professional diplomatic service with clear
standards for demonstrating successful
performance, as is required of the country’s senior military officers?
With this in mind, the president’s
prerogative to appoint ambassadors, and
the Senate’s responsibility to confirm
them, should both be leveraged to
strengthen the State Department. All
diplomatic appointments must be based
on relevant experience, exceptional
qualifications and personal distinction.
In particular, the de facto sale of ambassadorships should stop. To ensure a
robust institutional infrastructure capable of developing the highly skilled and
motivated diplomatic service that our
nation requires, there should be a ceiling
on the number of non-career appointments. (In 1980 the late Senator Charles Mathias suggested a 15-percent cap.)
A new leadership commitment to appointing knowledgeable and experienced career officers to important positions overseas and in Washington, D.C.,
would be an important step toward improving the professionalism, institutional
memory, continuity and credibility of
our diplomatic service. Bipartisan consensus on these points would go a long
way toward strengthening the State Department so it can conduct the diplomacy needed to better protect and
promote U.S. interests in a complex,
fast-changing global environment. ■
