“Going political” is a phrase used in the U.S. Foreign Service to indicate career diplomats’ frustration that yet another ambassadorship has been taken from them and given to a political appointee. For 20 years, the post in Russia has been reserved for professionals because of its difficulty and sensitivity — but that’s about to change.
Although President Obama’s decision to nominate Michael McFaul as the next U.S. ambassador to Moscow, which the White House announced late last week, surprised many in the Foreign Service, it’s unlikely to be met with serious criticism. Despite my recent series of critical columns on political ambassadors, I have no reason to question Obama’s motives in this case, either.
The first reason — I readily admit — is personal. I’ve known McFaul for 12 years, and I really like and respect him as a person and political scientist. We first met when he wrote an article for a journal I edited in 1999, for which he gave me the photo above.
I don’t know him well enough to call him a friend, but over the years he has been very helpful with many of my stories on Russia — as an academic, as Obama’s 2008 campaign adviser and, most recently, as senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council (NSC). We traveled to Moscow together on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s plane in 2009.
Interestingly, the first story for which I sought McFaul’s help in 2000 wasn’t about Russia, but about Condoleezza Rice. I had just done an interview with Rice, who was George W. Bush’s campaign adviser at the time, for the Financial Times and asked McFaul for his opinion of her. He had a unique perspective — both as a student and colleague of Rice’s at Stanford University.
Even though McFaul is only nine years younger than Rice, he was one of her first students as a young professor in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, his quote was edited out of my story for length, but everything he told me contributed to my understanding of the future secretary of state — after all, I was only 25 back then, and of course neither Rice nor I had any idea that we would be traveling together around the world five years later.
The differences between Rice’s and McFaul’s views on Russia are fascinating, but that’s a topic for another column.
The second reason not to question Obama’s decision is that, unlike most political ambassadors who are awarded an embassy because of their campaign contributions, McFaul knows his stuff. In fact, few other Americans know and understand Russia better than him. Most importantly, he is not just a scholar and distant observer — he speaks Russian quite well, has visited the country many times and maintained personal relationships with some of its leading minds.
While McFaul is an excellent choice for Moscow as an architect of Obama’s Russia policy, he has two potential shortcomings.
First, his diplomatic experience is limited to the last two years, and being at the NSC is somewhat different from doing day-to-day diplomacy. It’s no coincidence that, of eight ambassadors to Russia in the last 30 years, only one was a political appointee — ironically, Democrat Robert Strauss sent to Moscow by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.
Second, a modern ambassador should not be only about policy. Management is extremely important, especially at a large embassy like the one he is about to head. Unfortunately, McFaul hasn’t run anything before. There is a solution to that problem: Having a good, hands-on and experienced career diplomat as deputy chief of mission.
Related stories:
Who qualifies to be a U.S. ambassador?
The greatest understated U.S. diplomat
Why are political ambassadors tolerated?
Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
Diplomats in the news for wrong reasons
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Continue reading about Ambassadorship to Russia goes political
Most of us don’t think we are cut out to be doctors or engineers. Then why do so many of us believe we can be diplomats? Does one need training or a particular background to become a U.S. ambassador? I find myself asking these questions every time I hear about a failed non-career ambassador.
President Obama promised change in Washington, but he continued the decades-long tradition of dishing out ambassadorial posts to people whose only “qualifications” were their big donations to his election campaign. As I’ve written before, the American Academy of Diplomacy and the American Foreign Service Association have called him out on this disgraceful practice.
Many of those political appointees actually do a fine job. Although the two weeks of training they get at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute are grossly insufficient, they work hard to understand what it takes to handle the international relations of the United States, and what the daily conduct of diplomacy requires from them as civil servants.
But then there are those who think they already know what an ambassador should do and care little about tradition and bureaucracy. None of us admits to liking bureaucracy and we all express disdain for bureaucrats from time to time.
That’s exactly what Douglas W. Kmiec, the U.S. ambassador to Malta, did last week. He blasted a report by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which criticized him for neglecting his overall duties and engaging in “outside activities [that] have detracted from his attention to core mission goals.”
Instead of focusing on broader foreign policy and national security issues, Kmiec has been spending most of his time promoting his Roman Catholic faith, mainly by writing various articles and speaking about religion, as well as issues such as abortion.
Following the OIG report, Kmiec offered Obama his resignation, vehemently rejecting the investigation’s findings. “I doubt very much whether one could ever spend too much time on this subject,” he wrote in a letter to the president.
Unwittingly, Kmiec hit the nail right on the head. No single issue, with the exception of very few vital national security matters, deserves the time and attention the ambassador has apparently spent on religion. He is certainly not the first political appointee to make one issue the sole emphasis of his tenure.
Previous ambassadors have dedicated themselves to very noble causes, including raising awareness about terrible deceases. A prime example is the focus on fighting cancer that marked Nancy Brinker’s stint as ambassador to Hungary at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration. While that was enormously helpful, many of Brinker’s subordinates and other State Department employees felt that other important issues suffered as a result.
Kmiec is a well-respected law professor and former legal adviser in the Reagan White House. I don’t know him, and I usually try to avoid criticizing people who are my father’s age for no good reason. But just because he has been successful in his field and donated a lot of money to Obama’s 2008 campaign doesn’t necessarily make him a good ambassador by default.
The U.S. Embassy in Malta, which I have visited, may be small, but it still has representatives of many federal agencies with sometimes competing interests and needs to be run by the ambassador in the best possible way. Supporters of appointing political ambassadors often laud their personal relationship with the president, but what good does that relationship do if it’s not put to an effective use?
Obama deserves credit despite his failure to end the longtime practice. He has just launched his re-election campaign and needs support from conservatives like Kmiec, so his resignation is an unnecessary distraction. However, Obama has not tried to defend Kmiec, who said he would leave his post in the summer.
One would hope that the president will think twice before rewarding campaign donors with embassies if he wins the 2012 election. Kmiec is not Obama’s first political ambassador to be embarrassed by an OIG report. As I wrote in February, Cynthia Stroum, ambassador to Luxembourg, was forced to resign because of her poor management style and serious damage done to her embassy.
Kmiec has said he was not pressured to resign and made the decision without outside intervention.
Related stories:
The greatest understated U.S. diplomat
Why are political ambassadors tolerated?
Political ambassadorships hold at 30%
Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
Diplomats in the news for wrong reasons
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Continue reading about Who qualifies to be a U.S. ambassador?
During my decade as a State Department correspondent, I never expressed personal opinions about the diplomats I covered — as it should be. The closest I came to offering a glimpse of how I felt was a 2009 profile of William J. Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs. Last week, President Obama nominated Burns to be Hillary Clinton’s deputy.
As I wrote in a private e-mail message to Burns, whom I consider one of my friends in the Foreign Service, there is no one more deserving. My sources tell me that Clinton has been enormously impressed with him in the two years they have been working together. I haven’t found a single person with a negative opinion of Burns.
Deputy secretary of state is a political post, and very few career diplomats have held it. It’s extremely telling that of all Democrats in the foreign-policy establishment, Clinton didn’t see one better suited for the job than Burns.
It’s also a great testament to Burns’ abilities and achievements that Obama went along with Clinton’s choice and didn’t nominate a person from his inner circle. Clinton’s current deputy, James Steinberg, is considered Obama’s man at the State Department. The deputy secretary during the eight years of the Clinton administration was Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s onetime roommate at Oxford University.
Steinberg, who advised Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, is stepping down to become dean of the Maxwell School of Public Affairs at Syracuse University.
Here is my profile of Burns, which ran in the Washington Times on April 12, 2009, with contribution from Barbara Slavin.
Diplomatic Dedication
By Nicholas Kralev
Call him the understated undersecretary.
The highest-ranking career diplomat in the U.S. government, William J. Burns, held onto his job as undersecretary for political affairs when the administrations changed in January — a testament to his abilities, experience and, unusual for Washington, apparent lack of desire to grab the limelight, his friends and colleagues say.
There are many subjects he can discuss with ease — from Russia to the Middle East — but one he always shies away from: himself. Predictably, he declined to be interviewed for this profile. Many others, however, were happy to share their views.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that Mr. Burns was the first State Department official she met with after she was nominated by President-elect Barack Obama in November.
“He immediately lived up to his stellar reputation as a seasoned diplomat, and I have valued his insight and judgment every day,” she said. “He personifies the very best of our Foreign Service and is a model of dedication to our country.”
Mr. Burns was appointed a year ago by Mrs. Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. Although it is typical for every secretary to hire her own undersecretary, Mrs. Clinton made the almost unprecedented decision to retain Mr. Burns. “She knew from the start she wanted him to stay and wasn’t ever in doubt,” said one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides.
Just before Ms. Rice left the State Department in January, she said she was “really sad to leave people like” Mr. Burns, but “delighted” that he would continue to work with the new team, which “will never find a better repository of skill and dignity and integrity and honor.” Similar praise from departing political appointees to civil servants is not unusual, but Ms. Rice teared up when she uttered those words, and Mr. Burns was visibly touched.
During his nearly three decades of public service, Mr. Burns has received the nation’s highest honors, including two Presidential Distinguished Service Awards and several State Department awards. But perhaps most telling is the fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have appointed him to senior positions.
“He is one of the two finest diplomats I’ve ever met. The other happens to be a Japanese diplomat,” said Richard L. Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state during President George W. Bush’s first term, when Mr. Burns was assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. “What makes Bill so special is that he is calm, unflappable, informed, with an absolute steel core. He is a man of principle who will not bow to expediency.”
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III called Mr. Burns a “top-notch public servant” who “speaks truth to power in an understated way.” He is “not ideological, calls it like he sees it, and everybody has confidence in him,” Mr. Baker said. “I don’t know anyone who thinks ill of him, and if you look at the results of his work, you’ll know why.”
Elliott Abrams, the top Middle East expert in the Bush White House who has often been described as a neoconservative, said he traveled with Mr. Burns “quite a bit and had a very pleasant experience.”
“He knows how to make the machinery work and to serve the secretary well,” Mr. Abrams said of Mr. Burns, who was the Bush administration’s point man on diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. “He worked within the policy guidelines, and he did everything he could within that framework. So critics of the policy should focus on people who made the policy.”
The Bush administration refused to join European Union-led negotiations with Iran unless Tehran suspended uranium enrichment. Ms. Rice sent Mr. Burns to a meeting with an Iranian official in Geneva last summer, but he was not authorized to engage directly with the Iranian. On Wednesday, the Obama administration decided that Mr. Burns will participate in such discussions with Iran from now on.
Mr. Burns is expected to have a major influence on U.S. policy toward Iran and the wider Middle East, a reflection of experience that goes back to the administration of George H.W. Bush. Then Mr. Burns was one of a handful of so-called food processors” who churned through ideas for Arab-Israeli peace following the 1990 Gulf War.
Toby Gati, who was assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research in the Clinton administration, said that, although Mr. Burns has been able to serve both Republican and Democratic administrations “without losing his core beliefs,” he appears “liberated” working for the Obama administration. “Whenever we have a problem, I would sleep a lot easier knowing that Bill Burns is in charge of it,” Mrs. Gati said.
Several State Department officials said Mr. Burns has been an inspiration for young Foreign Service officers, because his career is proof that a modest but capable civil servant can reach the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Unlike his predecessor, R. Nicholas Burns, who loved being in the spotlight and held regular on-camera press briefings, “Bill Burns is not a politician — he prefers to do things quietly,” said one official who has worked for both men but asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Mr. Burns gave a rare speech at Princeton University last month, during which he talked about humility in foreign policy and seemed to be criticizing the Bush administration’s “lecturing” other countries on human rights and other issues, rather than leading by example.
“We do make mistakes,” he said, “and we gain in global status when we admit them, and then show how our own democratic system can reliably correct them.”
Mr. Burns returned to Washington last year after a stint as ambassador to Russia. His expertise is highly valued by the current administration, and he sat at Mr. Obama’s right during a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in London earlier this month.
“I entered the Foreign Service in 1982, in a world defined largely by the Cold War and an international order organized largely around Russian-American rivalry,” Mr. Burns said at Princeton. “Twenty-seven years later, the world is, of course, a much different place, and a constant source of humility for those of us trying to navigate through it, in pursuit of our country’s interests and values.”
Earlier in his career, Mr. Burns was ambassador to Jordan and also held senior staff positions at the State Department, such as executive secretary and executive assistant to Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and Madeleine K. Albright.
Mrs. Gati, who has known Mr. Burns since he was on the Soviet desk in the 1980s, said that one of Mrs. Clinton’s most challenging tasks would be “to produce the next generation of Bill Burnses.” “These people don’t appear from nowhere,” she said. “It takes 20-30 years to nurture someone like that.”
Related stories:
Why are political ambassadors tolerated?
Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
Diplomats in the news for wrong reasons
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Continue reading about The greatest understated U.S. diplomat
President Obama is very smart and highly intelligent man who knew more about the world than most presidential candidates do before taking office. So why did he appoint a political ambassador whose tenure has been nothing short of a disgrace, just because she was a significant contributor to his election campaign?
There are some excellent political appointees, but Cynthia Stroum, ambassador to Luxembourg, wasn’t one of them. She was forced to resign last week, following a scathing report of her management style and the damage she did to her embassy by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
I’ve covered the department for a decade and have rarely seen such a categorical, pointed and harsh document. Obama has every reason to be embarrassed.
“Most employees describe the ambassador as aggressive, bullying, hostile and intimidating, which has resulted in an extremely difficult, unhappy, and uncertain work environment,” the OIG report said after a two-month investigation last fall. “The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style.”
Since Stroum assumed her post in December 2009, “most of the senior staff, including two deputy chiefs of mission (DCM) and two section chiefs, has either curtailed or volunteered for service in Kabul and Baghdad. Other U.S. staff members have also departed early,” the OIG said. “Of the seven permanent and temporary staff who served” as DCM, “only one has remained for longer than 6 months.”
Many ambassadors and their wives indulge in costly renovations of their residences, but Stroum apparently went too far. The OIG “believes that too many of the limited resources of this embassy have been allocated to issues related to her personal support,” the report said.
During a six-week period in 2010, an embassy employee spent 80 to 90 percent of his time searching for a temporary residence for Stroum. “In late summer, he and several other staff members, as well as the management officer, spent several days locating and purchasing an umbrella” for the ambassador’s new patio, it said.
Most career diplomats — and many others — think the practice of awarding campaign donors with ambassadorships, which began in the Kennedy administration, should be ended. The infamous WikiLeaks cables showed the general public how complex and intricate the work of U.S. diplomats is. Why do people think that anyone can do it? Would you let someone operate on you if they don’t have the necessary medical training?
In July 2009, I broke a story that the White House, unaware of historic norms, had been on track to give more than the usual 30 percent of ambassadorial posts to political appointees until objections from career diplomats forced it to reconsider. Overall, that number still holds, but according to a list of ambassadors maintained by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), so far Obama has appointed 60 percent career and 40 percent political ambassadors.
Although campaign fund-raising is not a sufficient qualification for being a U.S. ambassador, there is a case to be made that political appointees are useful from time to time. I’ve met several good ones over the years, including Howard Baker, a former Republican senator and White House chief of staff under President Reagan, who was President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Japan.
Even Foreign Service officers say that they need an outsider’s point of view and a fresh perspective on things every once in a while. Someone with Baker’s political skills, stature and connections in Washington can actually be a huge asset to an embassy and the country where he serves.
On the other hand, Stroum wasn’t quite qualified for the job — even in tiny Luxembourg — but it seems the White House didn’t much care about that. She is by no means the only one. Bush’s ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, Roy L. Austin, was the subject of two OIG reports. Before his appointment, Austin was a sociology professor at Pennsylvania State University — but his best achievement was that he befriended Bush when both studied at Yale University. He changed five DCMs during his tenure, but amazingly he survived all the eight years of the Bush administration.
So while I don’t expect political ambassadors to disappear, the White House should take their appointment much more seriously and consider their knowledge and skills before they start acting like kings and queens around the world.
Related stories:
Political ambassadorships hold at 30%
Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
Diplomats in the news for wrong reasons
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Continue reading about Why are political ambassadors tolerated?
My name was involved in a curious intrigue this week. One of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides, in an attempt to get back at the Washington Times for a recent series of critical stories about Clinton’s deputy Jacob Lew, leaked to a reporter unpaid bills for trips I took with the secretary last year.
I understand the bills are now being settled, following yesterday’s story on the Foreign Policy magazine’s website. I was the Times’ diplomatic correspondent for nine years, until June.
When reporters travel with the secretary, the State Department charges their respective media for the plane ride and any costs incurred on the ground, such as motorcade vehicles and filing centers. Sometimes, those bills are sent out months after a trip, but every time I received one, I gave it to the appropriate person at the Times, along with the original trip authorization from senior management.
I’m told that four unpaid bills have been sitting in a folder in the accounting office for months. Shortly before I left the paper, I was asked how important it is to pay them quickly, given the Times’ tight finances. I pointed out that the bills are overdue, but that was the last time the subject came up.
The Times has had a new editor since January, and it’s possible the issue was never raised with him. It appears he has now made sure the matter is resolved.
This was certainly a very creative way for the State Department to get its money back. Isn’t the Washington game just precious? The stories the Times has been running about Lew have to do with his financial disclosures from his time at Citigroup, before joining the Obama administration. Since I haven’t worked at the paper for two months, I obviously had nothing to do with those stories — nor did I have a hand in any articles about Lew that may have been written before my departure.
Lew has been deputy secretary of state for management since January 2009, and earlier this summer, President Obama chose him as the next director of the White House Office of Management and Budget — a post he held at the end of the Clinton administration.
Continue reading about My trips with Clinton back in the news
