Lerk's open letter to President Kerry: #1: RE: ambassadorships...

[Lerkfish]

Dear Mr. President:

I know that now you are busy campaigning. I also know there are various influential persons assisting your campaign that you would like to thank somehow. Traditionally, When someone is elected presdent, those thanks sometimes come in the form of ambassadorships to various countries. I want you to consider breaking from this tradition, for several reasons:

WHAT'S BAD ABOUT THIS TRADITION:
1. POORLY EQUIPPED: Usually, big donors or big campaign helpers are given ambassadorships with no qualifications in either diplomacy or knowledge of the region of their assignment. Frequently, they have no foreign language skills nor interest in become fluent in the native language. This requires them to become overly dependent upon the staff and translators to function at all.
First of all, this puts our interests at risk. This becomes obvious to everyone, MOST NOTABLY the native government of his assignment, that our ambassador is poorly equipped to do his job competently. This forces them to work with the lower level embassy staff and do end runs around the ambassador to accomplish anything.
2. INSULTS THE COUNTRY OF ASSIGNMENT: This demonstrates to that country that you care so little about them you'll assign ANYONE to the post as a political favor. This means paying back friends is more important than diplomatic relations with the assigned country.
This erodes goodwill, rather than fostering goodwill, WHICH IS THE JOB OF AN AMBASSADOR. So in other words, this tradition actually works directly against the intent of placing a diplomatic staff in the first place. In other words, it automatically makes the position impotent. This means when you DO want to deal with the assigned country, you are already at a disadvantage. As president, on your visit, you will have to do more damage control than should be required. Instead of your diplomatic staff smoothing the way for you so your visit accomplishes whatever your intention was, your staf has actually made your mission MORE difficult diplomatically.


WHAT I SUGGEST:
Mr. President, you are fully aware that the previous Bush II administration has burned more diplomatic bridges than any previous administration in memory. It is imperative that you do the utmost to repair that damage. If I may humbly suggest some guidelines in choosing ambassadors that would go a long way towards rebuilding those bridges.

1. If the person you choose to fill the position is not culturally up to speed for that region, fly the embassy staff to the US BEFORE the official installation to brief them on what they need to know, from the point of view of the host country, as well as from american interests. If the post requires fluency in a different language, REQUIRE the committment of all candidates that that will be accomplished BEFORE the post is achieved. Make sure all your candidates understand the sobering mission they must undertake, that it has the responsibility of undoing significant damage. If the candidate is not willing, DO NOT APPOINT THEM. That simple. We cannot afford to have people in these positions that even remotely look like tourists or condescending "ugly americans"
2. Consider a different pool from which to draw your candidates. If you MUST reward those who donate to your campaign, please find some other way to do so, which does not jeopardize the battle to rebuild build diplomatic bridges.
What I suggest is that you consider actual experts in either diplomacy or the region in question as stronger candidates. For example, a professor in Russian political theory or a professor in charge of Japanese culture curriculum (two examples) could make a huge difference, being able to hit the ground running diplomatically. This would not only make YOUR job easier when you visit, but will more greatly impress the host country.
Why train someone to be an expert when you can simply hire the expert.
This has another advantage in that a non-political candidate will concentrate immediately on the job, and not the job's prestige.
3. Make the ambassadors accountable, credible representative of you and your foreign policy AND make them accountable, credible experts in accurately transmitting to you what the host country is looking for diplomatically. an Ambassador should be like a arbiter between two interests, instead of a sledgehammer to drive home the causes of only one interest. Because that's YOUR job, Mr. President, being the one to drive home the US interests. The ambassador has to live there, so they have a different mission: to understand and therefore advise both sides on how to arrive at diplomatic solutions.


The number one most imperative issue in your foreign policy should be to undo what George W. Bush has mangled. You need to do that with qualified expert diplomacy.

I implore you to resist the tradition. I urge you to consider those positions as crucial lynchpins in implementing your foreign policy, instead of a "perk" for people who've helped your campaign. Instead, making decisions concerning these appointments soberly, will cover a multitude of previous sins of others. Think long term.

thanks for listening...

Lerkfish.