When Will It Be a Lesbian's Turn

The Senate is finally getting around to clearing some of the ambassadorial nominees that have been sitting in limbo for months and months.

I suspect this could be happening because they know that when the Republicans take over in January, Presidential appointments could be more contentious.

I am really happy to see this happening. We need to have ambassadors in our countries. It says a lot about the seriousness with which we take the relations with that country and it affects the work we are able to do.

I am particularly happy to see folks like Donald Lu, who is going out as Ambassador to Albania, get confirmed. I have never met him, but every single person I have spoken to about him said he is a guy to work for. That they would work for him anywhere. That is the highest compliment a Foreign Service Officer can get.

And I am ecstatic to see Ted Osius' confirmation as Ambassador to Vietnam. Up to now, all of the current openly gay Ambassadors have been political appointees. Ted is a career officer, as is his husband Clayton Boyd. I have never met Ted, but Clayton is an awesome guy. I'd love to work with him one day.

But still missing from this lineup are openly gay Ambassadors of color or openly lesbian Ambassadors (career or political). Yes, I have heard speculation that this female Ambassador or that was lesbian (though that is often something speculated about any strong woman regardless of her sexuality), but I am talking about an out lesbian. A role model to the lesbians of the world and to the lesbian diplomats in the Department.

When will we see those appointments?

It Isn't Just Ambassadorial Appointees Who Are Waiting

You would think that with all that is going on in Ukraine and the need for diplomacy to help keep this from escalating to World War III that our Congress would prioritize, at least for a few minutes, the Foreign Service.

And you would be wrong.

I get it. I have ranted plenty about political appointee ambassadors and how there are too many of them and that some, especially recently, have been, shall we say, underwhelming in the qualifications department.

So I had considered blogging about the recent articles in the Washington Post about the backlog of ambassadorial appointments that are just sitting, waiting for Senate action. But I hadn't done it yet. Because I get it. They want to make a point about the sometimes profoundly unqualified donors selected to be ambassadors to important allies. But I also know they were sitting on career appointees too, who generally (but not always) do know about the countries to which they are headed. This leaves a lot of posts without an ambassador...some 28 ambassadorial vacancies in Central and South America, and 10 of 40 posts in Africa are also waiting. Most of these are not posts given to political appointees. Some of these folks have been waiting for nearly a year, (for the wait times, look here) and for the usually decidedly not wealthy career appointees (a career in government service in NOT a path to wealth unless you are serving in Congress), this means trying to find temporary jobs and housing while they wait. It is expensive for them, hard for posts, hard for the jobs they sit in waiting to leave, hard for our diplomatic relations with those countries....basically, hard for everyone but Congress.

So the post was coming...I just hadn't written it yet.

And then I get an email today from AFSA, the American Foreign Service Assocation, our "union" of sorts (they can bargain for us but we can't strike).

It seems that the Senate is not just sitting on ambassadorial appointments.

According to the email, the Senate is now holding up the commissioning, tenuring and promotions of some 1,700 folks in the Foreign Service. They do say that "progress has been made," but I don't read that as they have actually released the hold.

Come on now people.

We aren't talking about Ambassadors here. We are talking about the average Joes working in the Foreign Service. And for most of these, we are talking about the absolutely most junior diplomats. Commissioning usually happens short after you come on board and finish A-100. Tenuring usually happens within your first three to five years in the Service. It has to happen within five years or you are out (so if Congress holds up approving tenure for these officers too long, people who we want to keep will be forced out). So we aren't talking about folks who have been in a long time. Lots of these folks are sitting in visa mills, making sure people can come visit the U.S. (and spend their money here), making sure you can get home from overseas when your passport is stolen, making sure you are cared for in an overseas hospital or jail should bad things befall you on your trip. They are the lowest ranked, lowest paid of the exceptionally bright and motivated people we bring into the Foreign Service each year.

This seems like a good way to keep them from remaining motivated.

And the promotions? Those can range anywhere from those newly minted diplomats getting administrative promotions to senior Foreign Service. But let me assure you, the numbers of promotions at the upper level pale in comparison to those at the junior and mid-level. (ON EDIT: I was told the promotions are only Senior Foreign Service).

You are hurting solidly middle-class Americans who are deeply devoted to this country and want to serve it.

Stop it.

Diplomacy and National Security: the Politicization of Ambassadorial Appointments

I found this today at Rethinking National Security :

Diplomacy and National Security: the Politicization of Ambassadorial Appointments

Boring ! Fuggetaboutit ! It’s part of the system ! Some of them are really good! There are plenty of duds in the service, too! Have you never heard of American exceptionalism? And what does it have to do with national security? Yawn….

One more try! This frustrated champion of professionalism has in the past met with silence, scorn and rolling eyes when hoping to call attention to what he believes to be a major issue in any discussion of national security: the appointment of wealthy supporters and political or personal cronies to jobs as ambassadors of the United States of America abroad. It matters not that they are dispatched for the most part “only” to the Bushies’ Old Europe or other oh-so-yesterday friends or enemies (China, Japan) or watering holes in the sun. Nor does it matter that not all such appointees are wealthy donors but rather distinguished professors or men of steel who have proven their worth on the battlefield.

The habit has become entrenched over the past sixty years, with fairly consistent percentages of ambassadorial appointments going to career officers (69%) and outsiders (31%). Presidents of both political parties have been loyal to that tradition and certain details: since 1960, 72% of Western European and 73% of Caribbean posts have gone to friends and fund-raisers; since 1980, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan have each hosted one American careerist as against from six to nine politicos. President Barack Obama has trumped them all, increasing the number of political appointments by a third: as of September 13, 40.6% of ambassadorial posts have gone to non-career persons since his inauguration, with 68% to Europe as a whole and 78% to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Throw in Afghanistan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Mexico, Morocco, South Africa and the African Union, and you get the idea. (Which governments and peoples are most offended can be debated: those who are saddled with non-professionals, or those who don’t rate a presidential friend?)

The facts and figures are available on the website of the American Foreign Service Association, which under the leadership of President Susan Johnson has put the issue high on its agenda and tied it directly to our national security: “President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, along with congressional leaders from both parties, have called for strengthening the Department of State, our premier foreign policy institution. In doing so, they join their voices with those who have long argued that diplomacy is a major instrument of national security…The appointment of non-career individuals, however accomplished in their own field, to lead America’s important diplomatic missions abroad should be exceptional and circumscribed….”

Would that the President and Secretary Clinton had themselves made that linkage. While it is true that the regional bureaus at State are led at the highest levels by career officers or outsiders with proven expertise, our senior representatives abroad are often men or women with no qualifications for the job but who played important roles of one sort or another in the last presidential election. It is unlikely that the President selected them all, for the Secretary, Vice President Biden and, perhaps, others at the White House all had political debts to pay off or buddies to reward, but the appointments are the President’s responsibility – in every sense of the word. And who is really paying off those debts? It is the American tax-payer who foots the bill for salaries, first-class travel, seriously opulent and staffed residences, armored cars and chauffeurs and body-guards and representational expenses. Should not the tax-payer have the benefit of thinking that his contribution helps serve his country rather than supporting a high life style for a corporate donor? Or perhaps he should content himself with the thought that the appointment of fat cats is no more than a minor reflection of the proper role of money in politics under the First Amendment (as recently confirmed by the Supreme Court).

The reactions cited at the start of this diatribe were not made up, and the most discouraging thing for me is that Foreign Service Officers, active and retired, who may have read my earlier attempts to bring this issue to the fore are among the most bored. AFSA, however, in addition to tracking and publishing ambassadorial appointments has given high priority to the need for required education and training on the way toward building a diplomatic corps that qualifies in every way as a profession. (See the May 2010 issue of the Foreign Service Journal.) This approach can serve over time to reduce political appointments, but we must not wait that long. FSOs should not shy from speaking out for fear of being labeled clubby or resentful of having failed to land a post of their own.

As I recently (and learnedly, having consulted my etymological dictionary) told a class of French university students, “to negotiate” means no more or less than “to do business.” When our diplomats negotiate with foreign officials, the business at hand is, in one way or another, and with varying degrees of importance and urgency, our national security. When our ambassadors do it, the stakes are often high. And there I rest my case for professionalism and an end to political appointments.

I Don't Want to Seem Ungrateful...

...that the President has selected openly gay appointee David Huebner for the Ambassadorship to New Zealand. It is another step, granted a baby step, but at least a step. (Next stop, repeal DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Just a thought).

Even so, he is still picking yet another political appointee. There are plenty of well qualified LGBT Foreign Service Officers of a rank to be named Ambassador. Despite his campaign promise to recognize that the foreign service is a profession and that the number of political appointee ambassadors should be reduced from the historic average of 30%, he is on track to exceed that number by a significant amount. And as we know, while some of the political appointees are well qualified, lots are qualified only by the amount of their campaign contributions (this is true of the appointees of all administrations).

I am sure there are some non-military folks who are qualified to be Admirals and Generals, but we don't make political appointments to those positions.

At any rate, here is the WH Press release:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 7, 2009

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON - Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:

David Huebner, Ambassador to New Zealand and the Independent State of Samoa
David D. Nelson, Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay

President Obama said, "I am confident that these individuals will represent our nation well in these important roles. I am grateful for their service and look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

David Huebner, Nominee for Ambassador to New Zealand and the Independent State of Samoa David Huebner is the head of the China Practice and the International Disputes Practice at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, where he specializes in international arbitration and mediation. Currently based in Shanghai, he has significant experience handling disputes in the Pacific Rim region. Previously, he was a long-time partner and served as chairman at Coudert Brothers. While a resident in California, Mr. Huebner chaired the California Law Revision Commission, served as president of the Los Angeles Quality & Productivity Commission, and taught courses in international business and intellectual property at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. He has also guest lectured on international topics at several schools in the United States and abroad, and is licensed both as a solicitor in England & Wales and as an attorney in three U.S. jurisdictions. He has been active in non-profits, community organizations, and professional associations such as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, International Chamber of Commerce Commission on Arbitration, Los Angeles Committee on Foreign Relations, and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). A native of Pennsylvania, Mr. Huebner is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University, where he majored at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is also a graduate of Yale Law School.

David D. Nelson, Nominee for Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay David D. Nelson has served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Economic, Enmic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) since January 2009 and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of EEB, with specific responsibility for International Finance and Development since June 2008. In those functions, Mr. Nelson has been responsible for providing the Secretary of State with advice on a full range of international economic issues. Mr. Nelson is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service. He has previously served as Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, as Director of the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions, Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Task Force, and as Director of the Office of Monetary Affairs. He has also served on the National Security Council as Senior Coordinator for the Sea Island G-8 Summit, and has been posted abroad in Berlin, Madrid, Bonn, Quito, Montevideo and Merida. Mr. Nelson is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, and earned a Masters Degree in Economics at the University of Maryland.

A good start anyway...

According to the Associated Press Friday:

Obama anticipates some political appointments

WASHINGTON (AP) - He's vowed to change the way business is done in Washington, but that doesn't mean Barack Obama won't be making some political appointments to ambassadorial posts around the world.

The president-elect told reporters Friday that his "general inclination" is to have career foreign service people in those posts "whenever possible." He says that's one way of "rejuvenating" the State Department and attracting young people.

But Obama said it would be "disingenuous" for him to suggest that he won't be putting some political appointees in embassies.

He says they'll still be "excellent public servants," and that people will be able to judge the "professionalism and high quality" of the people he appoints to those posts.

Of course he will have political appointees...but if we could reduce the number, I think that would be a good start. As I have said before, my current boss is (was) a political appointee. I thought he was great in the job and he'll be missed. But I do think most Ambassadorships and high-level positions in the State Department should be held by careerists.

Politically Appointed Vs Career Foreign Service Officers

Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post reported this item yesterday and I have noticed quite a few mentions of it in other blogs:

Obama Gives Political Ambassadors Their Pink Slips
By Glenn Kessler
The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.

Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.

UN Dispatch was one of the blogs commenting on the development (which, just to be clear is not a HUGE development...all ambassadors, even career Foreign Service Officers, offer their resignation at the end of an administration. It is true that some are allowed to stay, at least for a little while. This is just more overt than usual).

Politically Appointed Vs Career Foreign Service Officers?

Matthew Yglesias links to this item explaining that President-elect Barack Obama has ordered all politically appointed ambassadors to vacate their posts by January 20th. Matt says:

"I had always just thought of this is a kind of casual, widely accepted corruption. But recently I did learn the official story as to why this is good practice, namely that an important political supporter or a friend of the president is likely to have a much easier time of getting access to the Oval Office than any mere foreign service officer would. Thus, it's arguably better for the host country to have a political appointee than a career FSO. Therefore, this practice helps build good-will and so forth."

This may be true, but it should be pointed out that many ambassadors to posts that require actual trouble-shooting are often career foreign service officers. The United States ambassador to Chad Louis J. Nigro, for example, joined the foreign service in 1980. Is it really more desirable that the Ambassador to say, Holland, have easier access to the Oval Office than say, Mr. Nigiro? I'm doubtful.

I admit I am a fan of reducing (I don't expect the practice to stop) the number of political appointee Ambassadors, for a number of reasons. First, you don't see political appointee Generals or Admirals. Why? Because we expect the leaders of our soldiers to be professional soldiers themselves, with the years of training and experience they have built up coming through the ranks serving them as they make life and death decisions. Can you imagine a "Brownie" leading our troops the way Mike Brown led FEMA? Of course not. It is the same with the Foreign Service. We are the "soft power" to the military's "hard power." We are professional diplomats with the training and experience to effectively serve our country's foreign policy objectives. Just knowing the President doesn't give you those qualifications. I will admit there are political appointees who are very very good and who bring useful skill sets to the job. But there are also political appointees who bring nothing more than a receipt for their contribution. Do they have better access to the White House? Maybe. But I would hope my President would be wise enough to listen to his Ambassadors from all countries, because crisis can strike anywhere and small countries can have big global impacts.

And second, political appointees hurt morale. Most of us serve knowing that no matter how good we are, we can't expect to attain the highest positions in the Department unless we win the lottery. Only one Secretary of State has been a career Foreign Service Officer (points if you know who), and many of the Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and the Ambassadors at the nicest posts are political appointees. Which sends a strong message that the rank and file don't measure up.

And the truth is we do measure up. We serve, year after year, advancing the President's foreign policy to the best of our abilities agenda regardless of who occupies the White House. Because we are professionals. And just like professional soldiers, we should be able to expect that the majority of our leaders have gotten where they are by succeeding on the same path we are walking, not by the size of their checkbook or the happenstance of their birth.

Retired FSO calls for end to political-appointee Ambassadorships

The article below was written by Barbara Bodine for Politico. Ambassador Bodine is director of the Scholars in the Nation’s Service Initiative, a program that encourages students to pursue careers in the federal government, at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. She served for more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, including as U.S. ambassador to Yemen from 1997 to 2001.

It's time to stop selling ambassadorships
By BARBARA BODINE

During the Cold War, Malcolm Toon, a career diplomat in the U.S. Foreign Service and ambassador to Moscow, was chatting with his good friend, a four-star admiral and head of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. They were both coming to the end of long and distinguished careers and mused about what they would do next. The admiral told Toon he thought he might want to be an ambassador — someplace nice, of course. The ambassador paused, considered this and, in response, quipped that he thought he might become an admiral.

[...]

The American Academy of Diplomacy, which counts among its members all living ex-secretaries of state, recently called upon Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain to pledge to end this practice and accord the nation’s diplomacy and diplomats the same recognition we accord our senior military officers, who dedicate their careers to national service.

The academy acknowledged that there has been, and will continue to be, notable noncareer ambassadors such as Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker (interestingly, both former senators) and realistically recommends that noncareer ambassadorships be held to no more than 10 percent, down from the current 30-plus percent. But it makes clear that it is untenable for a great power, a global power, to entrust its frontline national security managers — ambassadors — to used car salesmen, hairdressers, art dealers and strip mall developers, as it has in the recent past.

It is not an issue of individual patriotism, loyalty to the president and to administration policies, or personal commitment; politically appointed ambassadors are no more or less patriotic, loyal or committed than are career diplomats. It is a question of experience, expertise and depth of competence. Diplomacy is not an amateur sport or avocation; it’s a skilled profession.

It is imperative to hold the selection of America’s ambassadors to the highest standards of leadership, judgment, national and international knowledge, intellect, and interpersonal skills (just a few of the skill sets the academy set out as the standards for selection). But there is one other less immediate but profoundly important reason for the next American president to recognize and advance professionalism at the top: to attract talent at the bottom.

The American people need our government to attract and promote the very best of the next generation — and our foreign policy and national security demands it. Government service, the Foreign Service, is a calling. Foreign Service officers do it not for the glamour or the lifestyle (and certainly not the money), but out of a sense of commitment to country, of service, and out of a belief — and idealism, perhaps — that they can, through individual efforts as part of an embassy “team,” make the United States and the world just a little safer, just a little better than when they walked in.

American diplomats dedicate their careers, their lives, to developing the skills, experience and expertise necessary to test their mettle daily. Their investment is matched by the investment the American taxpayer makes to develop this cohort of skilled professionals.

How do you explain to a student or any aspirant to the Foreign Service that, while the U.S. government expects that level of commitment, no matter how well and how long you serve, it is likely that a political donor with little relevant experience will end up with the top job of your profession?

[...]

You can read the entire piece here.