State Department
Nearly 3,000 U.S. diplomats have urged United Airlines to extend to them a waiver from its more expensive and “unfriendly” new pet travel policy that the carrier has granted the military, the diplomats’ union said. While it took United just days to exempt the military, it has been mulling the State Department’s request for weeks.
The biggest hurdle appears to be the lack of understanding by United’s management — as is the case with most people — what the Foreign Service does, and why diplomats’ service to their country is no less important than the military’s. That’s exactly why — long before this issue arose — I decided to write my upcoming book “America’s Other Army.”
“Our immediate goal is for United to extend the waiver they have granted our military colleagues to civilian federal employees traveling on official ‘permanent change of station’ orders,” said Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). “This would allow federal employees assigned to embassies and missions abroad to continue to ship companion animals not eligible to travel in cabin as accompanied baggage at excess baggage rates, and makes use of professional pet shippers, freight forwarders, or cargo handlers optional.”
AFSA first sent a letter to United’s CEO Jeff Smisek on March 2, the day before the new policy took effect, Johnson said. The policy, known as PetSafe, had been used by Continental Airlines for more than decade, according to a former Continental employee whose daughter is in the Foreign Service. After the United-Continental merger was completed, the combined carrier’s pet policy followed what Continental used to do — just like almost everything else, including the reservations system, about which I wrote earlier this month. Smisek was Continental’s CEO.
Under the old policy, which was similar to that of most other airlines, pets that were too big to take in the cabin could be checked as excess luggage handled by the carrier, at an average rate of about $250 per each way. PetSafe requires that those animals be treated as cargo. In many countries, all cargo is subject to inspections and other customs formalities, which are typically handled by third-party vendors. The fees for those services range from hundreds to thousands of dollars.
Following the military’s outcry late last month, United quickly decided to allow personnel traveling to a new station to check pets as luggage and avoid a third-party provider — and the higher fees. However, United spokeswoman Mary Ryan said in an e-mail message, “We do not have plans to extend this exemption to anyone beyond military members who are traveling on orders or permanent change of station only.”
Mike Oslansky, senior manager for cargo marketing, customer service and business systems, responded to AFSA’s letter to Smisek, saying that United developed the waiver for the military “in recognition of the commitment made by members of our military and the family members (including the four-legged ones) who share in their sacrifice” and intends to limit this “special process” to military families only, Johnson said.
It seems United’s management doesn’t think that American diplomats make any sacrifices when serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, the Congo and many other extremely dangerous places. Not all diplomats are posted to London and Paris — not that those “cushy” in most people’s minds posts are not dangerous, judging by the 2005 London terrorist attacks or last week’s murders in the French city of Toulouse.
By many accounts, PetSafe has been very successful domestically. United takes care of the pets without using third-party vendors, it automatically transfers the animals to connecting flights on its own aircraft and keeps them in air-conditioned facilities during layovers. Although the pets are checked in as cargo, there are no customs or other bureaucratic formalities, so the service is not too expensive.
However, that doesn’t work internationally most of the time. Very few diplomats take a nonstop flight to their new post. In some cases, they make two or even three connections. In each city, they are now forced to leave the passenger terminal, walk or take a taxi to the cargo terminal, collect their pets, recheck them in — often on a different airline, which could add more fees — then return to the passenger terminal, go through security again, and finally arrive at their next gate. By the time all that happens, they may well miss their connecting flight. Even worse if a single parent with small children is trying to accomplish those tasks.
Because of the so-called Fly America Act, the federal government must book its employees on U.S. carriers — on full-fare tickets. Foreign Service members and their families often end up on United, and many of them are elite MileagePlus members. The State Department and its 50,000 employees around the world have supported United for decades. Not to mention that one of the missions of the Foreign Service is to help create and expand business opportunities for U.S. companies, and airlines tend to benefit from that significantly.
The State Department is not seeking a waiver from the new policy for all 50,000 employees. In fact, more than 30,000 are locally hired foreign nationals who don’t travel as much as the American officials. At issue are only the 12,000 Foreign Service members — a fraction of the overseas military personnel — and only when they change posts, not Washington-based officials who may travel several times a month. After all, anyone moving from Bolivia to Uganda would find PetSafe very challenging, indeed.
Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, has spoken with Marc Anderson, United’s senior vice president of corporate and government affairs, Johnson said, but that conversation has yet to produce results. More than 2,800 AFSA members have sent e-mail messages to Smisek and other United executives, she added.
“I love the Foreign Service,” an officer in Southeast Asia told me, “but moving my family is getting harder and harder.”
Related stories:
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Round the world in a week, without pain
Did United choose the best rez system?
United, Continental execs at odds over loyalty program
Continental shows new transparency
United executive breaks old barriers
Continue reading about Diplomats decry new United pet policy
How do you make sure a whirlwind trip round the world in just a week doesn’t wear you out and affect your productivity? Things went surprisingly well for me last week, as I flew from Washington to Munich to Paris to Bangkok to Islamabad, back to Bangkok, on to Seoul and back to Washington, so I thought I’d share the experience.
The first thing I have to say is that I don’t drink coffee or take sleeping pills. My only medicine when it comes to air travel is securing the best comfort and luxury I can — I need my flat beds, gourmet meals, lounges with showers, and sometimes even chauffeur-driven cars to connecting flights. I certainly can’t pay for them, but we’ll come to that momentarily.
Second, if you are going to circle the planet in a week, fly to the east, not the west. As much as I dislike those overnight flights from the U.S. East coast to Europe, because they are too short to get decent sleep, moving in that direction is much better in terms of adjusting to time differences. I was never jet-lagged during or after my journey.
The trip, which was blessed by the State Department, was part of the final research phase for my upcoming book on the U.S. Foreign Service, “America’s Other Army,” during which I visited the U.S. embassies in France, Thailand and Pakistan. Overall, I’ve visited almost 60 diplomatic and consular missions for this project, which began with my 2004 newspaper series, and interviewed more than 600 diplomats and other officials.
I used frequent-flier miles, but instead of getting what would have been a very expensive and restrictive round-the-world ticket, I issued two one-way tickets: One in First Class from Washington to Asia over the Atlantic, with a 24-hour stop in Europe, and another one in Business Class from Asia back home over the Pacific.
As I wrote in my first book, “Decoding Air Travel,” the best use of miles is for premium cabins. But why did I book First Class on the outbound for 80,000 miles, and not Business for 60,000? When I use miles, I make an effort to fly on the world’s best airlines. Of those, on my departure date Lufthansa was the only option, but it has some of the worst Business Class seats in the civilized world. First Class, on the other hand, is quite good, except for the small TV screen — that’s not the case with a few aircraft that have the new First seats with much bigger screens.
The more important reason for choosing First Class, however, was Thai Airways, which operates its Paris-Bangkok flights on planes leased from India’s Jet Airways that have private cabins with sliding doors in First. I had flown in one of those cabins from Tokyo to Bangkok a couple of months earlier and wanted to experience a much longer flight in such luxury. In addition, Thai Airways offers First Class passengers complimentary full-body massages in its Royal Orchid Spa at the Bangkok airport.
My Lufthansa flight from Washington to Munich was excellent, as expected, with top-notch flight attendants, which can’t be said of the ground staff at Dulles airport. I liked the new design of the pajamas they give First Class passengers. The food was consistent with my previous experiences, including the signature black caviar and several other appetizers. Although the seats are rather old by now, I always found the bed very comfortable.
I broke my habit of not having breakfast on overnight flights to Europe so I could have enough time for a shower in the First Class lounge in Munich before my connecting flight, since I had a full schedule as soon as I arrived in Paris. When it was time to board, I was whisked to my Paris plane in a Porsche.
The ambassador to France, Charles Rivkin, one of the best non-career ambassadors I know, couldn’t have been a better host, opening the doors of both his embassy and residence, and having a dinner in my honor, according to the elegant menu, with some of the top French journalists. My 24 hours in Paris were very productive, thanks to everyone I met, and especially spokesman Paul Patin, who put together my schedule at a very short notice.
It was time for the 11-hour flight to Bangkok, which didn’t disappoint, except for turbulence during most of it — and a 90-minute delay because of a flight attendant who fell ill just as we prepared to take off. After great meals, three films and a few hours of sleep behind closed doors, I was met by a Thai representative upon arrival in Bangkok and driven in a gold cart to the First Class lounge, where I took a shower before heading to the embassy.
Another full day of meetings and interviews followed, including two sessions with Ambassador Kristie Kenney, a career Foreign Service officer and one of the most capable, according to her colleagues — I hadn’t met her before. With the help of embassy spokesman Walter Braunohler, I covered enough ground with employees in several embassy buildings. The only slightly unpleasant part of the day was the 90°F temperature, especially after 20°F in Paris just hours earlier.
There was no time for a massage at the airport in the morning, but I managed to squeeze one in just before I flew to Islamabad in the evening. Unlike my plane from Paris, most Thai aircraft have old unimpressive seats in Business Class — and no First Class. Still, the food and service were up to standard, and I got some sleep before my 10:30 p.m. arrival in Pakistan.
My visit to Embassy Islamabad was the longest part of the trip — two full days and nights — and I was hosted by Ambassador Cameron Munter, whom I’ve known for eight years and consider one of the most brilliant serving U.S. diplomats. I also think he has possibly the most challenging job in the Foreign Service. He has assembled an outstanding team at the embassy, which actually surprised me, given the perception in Washington that few good officers volunteer to serve in Pakistan.
Munter went out of his way to accommodate my research needs, as did his chief of staff, Scott Kofmehl, with help from embassy spokesman Mark Stroh and many others.
On my flight back to Bangkok, I managed to get one of the embassy employees on a coach ticket into Business Class, thanks to an oversold Economy cabin. I had a long enough layover in Bangkok for a light breakfast in the lounge, some work and a foot massage, which is offered to Business Class passengers.
Then my Thai flight to Beijing had a significant mechanical delay, causing me to miss my connection to Washington on United Airlines.
While the Thai staff in the Business lounge scrambled for two hours to find an alternative way to get me home, I decided to apply in practice one of the things I preach in “Decoding Air Travel”: How to turn a negative airline situation into a positive one. In any case, I was looking at an arrival in Washington more than 12 hours later than scheduled, so the goal was to minimize my delay and stay in Business Class — preferably on an airline that has fully flat beds.
Korean Air met those requirements, and I added to my list a very good airline I’d never flown before — in fact, the 52nd carrier on that list. Korean Air is not in the Star Alliance, but to their credit, the Thais agreed to pay the Koreans a full Business Class fare in order to accommodate me, even though I was on an award ticket. They also agreed to let me spend the remaining 10 hours before my flight to Seoul in the First Class lounge, where I had a great lunch, did more work and slept for a few hours in a real bed, in one of their sleeping rooms.
Of course, they wouldn’t have done any of those things had I not been insistent — actually, a pain may be a better description. But I felt it was their fault, and they were responsible for rectifying the situation. I also knew they wouldn’t offer any compensation — Asia doesn’t have the rules Europe, and to some extent the United States, have — so I had to get whatever I could in other forms.
To sum up, my weeklong round-the-world trip didn’t wear me out — and now you know why.
Related stories:
Round-the-world fare mysteries revealed
Foreign Service series: America’s other army
The greatest understated U.S. diplomat
Who qualifies to be a U.S. ambassador?
In air with Clinton on first trip abroad
Continue reading about Round the world in a week, without pain
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?
