The middle of the summer is a good time to review the balance of political appointees vs. career diplomats in ambassadorial posts around the world. Not surprisingly, the familiar 30-percent quota for political appointments of the last several decades remains largely intact.
Actually, for some people, continuing the tradition of awarding presidential campaign contributors with embassies may be surprising, given President Obama’s promise to change the way Washington works during the 2008 election.
However, as I wrote a year ago, reality set in soon after Obama took office. According to a list maintained by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the diplomats’ union, of all ambassadors Obama has nominated so far, about 40 percent are political appointees.
That number, though, is a bit misleading, because almost all political appointees change when a new president moves into the White House — unlike career diplomats, who typically remain in their posts for another year or two. It’s more appropriate to look at all embassies around the world — not just Obama’s nominees — and the AFSA list shows 29.7 percent political appointees out of 185 positions globally. That number is slightly lower than it was during the last years of George W. Bush’s presidency.
Another interesting number is that of the nominated but not-yet-confirmed career diplomats under Obama — there are 40 in each category. In contrast, of 55 political appointees, 52 have been confirmed by the Senate.
This issue is understandably controversial for Foreign Service members, and there was a time last year when the White House was on its way to nominating more than 30 percent political appointees. As I reported then, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to interfere.
“Why is ours the only profession where it’s considered acceptable to appoint someone without any experience?” Steven B. Kashkett, AFSA’s acting president, said at the time. “Would you appoint someone to head a hospital without medical experience?”
Continue reading about Political ambassadorships hold at 30%
British Prime Minister David Cameron surprised many this week by traveling to Washington for his first official White House visit since taking office on a commercial British Airways flight, instead of taking a dedicated plane, to save money. Now some Americans are wondering if U.S. officials could follow suit.
Having traveled around the world with four U.S. secretaries of state — Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright — over the last decade, I can see how commercial flying would save the State Department millions of dollars a year. However, it would also guarantee a logistical nightmare.
Most people don’t know that Clinton has been taking commercial flights since she became secretary of state, but that happens only when she goes home to New York from DC. Work-related flights to New York are flown on small Air Force planes.
On foreign trips, the security detail and the staff accompanying the secretary make for a large entourage that would be hard to accommodate on one commercial aircraft in business or first class. Knowing the security requirements, I’m guessing regular passengers would be required to board two hours before takeoff.
More importantly, the secretary often visits more than one country in one day, so trying to accomplish that commercially is practically impossible. Not to mention that nonstop flights don’t exist to many destinations most of the time.
Last year, I wrote two columns detailing Clinton’s first trip as America’s chief diplomat.
Rice used to take a smaller plane than the C-32 — the Air Force version of the Boeing 757 — on quite a few trips. That required most of the staff and press corps to fly commercially, which was fine with me, since I flew much more comfortably and got tons of frequent-flier miles.
Apparently, Cameron didn’t have the limitations mentioned above, and there are plenty of nonstop stop between London and DC. It’s impressive, though, that he flew in business class — not first — and his meetings in DC were arranged around the British Airways schedule, according to the British press. His two immediate predecessors, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, also flew on a BA plane, but it was chartered and dedicated to them.
Speaking of the State Department and saving money on travel, I’ve witnessed excessive spending of taxpayers dollars for years, but that’s a topic for another column.
Continue reading about British leader flies to DC commercially
A pushback from the military and a skeptical secretary of defense have dashed the hopes of some Obama administration officials for closer cooperation with a global war-crimes tribunal that some fear could prosecute American service members, current and former U.S. officials say.
Although the United States has rejoined the meetings of the International Criminal Court (ICC) member states after an eight-year absence, it has taken little new action to work more closely with the court.
In fact, many international legal analysts argue that there was a more significant change in U.S. policy toward the ICC from the first to the second term of President George W. Bush than there has been since President Obama took office last year…
A dispute over the State Department budget has pitted the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, against a fellow Democrat and head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, and the Obama administration.
Mr. Conrad led an effort to slash President Obama’s $58 billion international affairs request for 2011 by $4 billion, a cut his committee approved last week. Despite protests from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and all her living predecessors, the senator stood his ground on Wednesday.
“The fact is that international funding has grown significantly in recent years,” he said. “Budgets are about setting priorities. Our budget provides a responsible and balanced approach”…
Continue reading about Cuts to State Dept. budget ignite interparty row
The Obama administration is shifting the focus of U.S. public diplomacy efforts to play down the past emphasis on countering violent extremism in order to avoid offending foreign audiences opposed to terrorism.
Judith A. McHale, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, said in an interview with The Washington Times that “a very narrow segment” of the world’s population is at risk of turning to extremism, and the policies adopted by the Bush administration should be broadened.
“Looking back, there was such a focus on countering violent extremism that everything got swept into the same category or the same bucket,” Ms. McHale said. “So if you were teaching English in many countries around the world, it was described as part of our [counter-extremism] effort, whether or not the individuals you were teaching were ever at risk of becoming violent extremists”…
Continue reading about U.S. downplays extremism in foreign outreach
Social media