Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Recent nominations highlight the continuing spoils system of politicians returning favors for fundraising. A few appointments highlight this practice has not ended. Appointing the unqualified to the diplomatic service on the mere reward for political fundraising raises the question of importance our government places on foreign policy between the United States and other Nations. Some recent appointments highlight the fact that diplomatic credentials are not necessarily the most important criterion.
President Obama nominated Noah Mamet to become the next Ambassador to Argentina. In a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Thursday Mr. Mamet stated that though he traveled extensively around the world he had not the opportunity yet to travel there. He was successful in generating much cash for then Candidate Obama’s first election campaign, reported to be in 2008 $500,000.00 and for the re-election campaign of President Obama another $500,000.00 in 2012.
Yet Mr. Mamet is not unique in his past travels. In January George Tsunis, President Obama’s nominee for the Ambassador to Norway, stated to Senator John McCain during questioning that he had not been to Norway but more importantly the hotel magnate showed his lack of complete knowledge of Norway’s government when he made reference to Norway as having a president, it is a constitutional monarchy, and earned the ire of at least one Scandinavian newspaper referring to what it described as a “’faltering, incoherent performance.” Another mistake was to declare the Norwegian Progress Party as being having “fringe elements” that “spew their hatred” when in fact seven of Norway’s cabinet ministers are members of this party. But despite this he won Senate confirmation. He too is a successful bundler of campaign contributions: $50,000.00 to Senator John McCain’s campaign and over $1,000,000.00 for President Obama’s.
George Tsunis has demonstrated success in business and other charitable causes. His bio on Chartwell Hotels’ website:
“George James Tsunis is the Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chartwell Hotels, LLC; which owns, develops and manages Hilton, Marriott and Intercontinental hotels throughout the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states.
Prior to founding Chartwell Hotels, Mr. Tsunis was a partner at the law firm of Rivkin Radler LLP, Long Island’s largest law firm, representing both private clients and municipalities in the practice areas of land use and zoning, real estate, corporate, municipal law and commercial litigation. Mr. Tsunis’ public service includes time as a Legislative Attorney at the New York City Council, Special Counsel to the Town of Huntington Environmental Open Space Committee, and as Counsel to the Dix Hills Water District”
Certainly these qualifications are meritorious for a business leader, but are these the skills transferable in diplomatic circumstances? Would a keen knowledge of Norwegian history, geopolitics, or even the Norwegian language be important? Or, are political contributions the requisite requirement.
But the person who has attracted particular interest is the nomination of Soap Opera Producer Colleen Bell as Ambassador to Hungary. Ms. Bell produced The Bold and the Beautiful television program. In addition, she was nominated by President Obama as a Trustee to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and has served on boards of directors for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Rape Treatment Center of UCLA Medical Center at Santa Monica and the Children’s Institute Inc.
Ms. Bell has been listed according to the New York Times as one of President Obama’s largest campaign fund bundlers, reportedly to at least $800,000.00 and has hosted several large fundraising events at her residence and other initiatives. Again, certainly qualified in philanthropy and business but what of her diplomatic credentials? At the hearing when asked by Senator McCain to describe American strategic interests in Hungary, she replied:
“We have our strategic interests, in terms of what are our key priorities in Hungary. I think our key priorities are to improve upon, as I mentioned, the security relationship and also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade … Our strategic interests are to work collaboratively as NATO allies…To work to promote and protect the security, both for both countries and for and for the world, to continue working together on the cause of human rights around the world, to build that side of our relationship while also maintaining and pursuing some difficult conversations that might be necessary in the coming years.”
If this was an example of her understanding of American strategic interests one has to wonder what other areas of Hungarian society and government interests she commands expertise in.
In the proper sense traditionally diplomats have at least brought governmental and foreign policy or relevant academic experience to their ambassadorship and at least a well founded understanding of the countries to which they will represent the United States. But the credibility of the United States begins to be questioned when appointments for to various ambassadorships are often by political or fundraising patronages. Certainly there are ambassadors nominated and confirmed who have expertise in the countries they will be stationed, but if a particular individual is a major campaign contributor do these qualified potential nominees get bumped from the position to favor a political contributor?
It is not only a credibility issue for the United States it is also frankly perceived by some nations as an insult to their government and nation. That is the United States did not respect their nation enough to provide the best diplomat available to them but instead toffered a much less diplomatically qualified ambassador they view as a crony. The ambassador was not offered to benefit their nation but reward a political ally, and certainly not a highly capable diplomat as their country has endeavored to provide to the United States.
And it remains a question as to how well these candidates would control a diplomatic crisis in these nations, such as when a civil disorder or upheaval faced the country and consequently the United States. It is one thing to be successful in handling public relations and business crises, but it is much more magnified in geopolitical politics where entire nations are involved. Could these candidates be successful in such circumstances and are the United State’s interests best served by a less than the best candidate available?
It would be of benefit to rely more on a merit system to staff our diplomatic corps rather than the spoils system often used. Outcomes are certainly indicative of priorities in our government.
Sources:
Chartwell Hotels
Mail Online UK
Wikipedia: Colleen Bell
Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Randyjet mentioned Joseph Kennedy. He was the “guy who held Chamberlains’ umbrella.” Bootlegger, sent to England in a bad time. He favored the Krauts. Sonnyboy put up a bunch of apCray that ignored that truth. Now Sonnyboy’s daughter is Ambassador to Japan. Jeso. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Right Justice Holmes? Buck v. Bell, 1927. Time to sterilize the whole tribe of Micks.
This comment seems to be pushing the edge of the civility envelope.
Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Right Justice Holmes? Buck v. Bell, 1927. Time to sterilize the whole tribe of Micks.
Ditto on bundled or bungled.
Obama’s appointments to the diplomatic service is just one more thing to be disgusted and disappointed about. I am really made about TPP.
Darren, Good piece. When Obama leaves office and all of the apologists move on to other candidates, everyone will see this was the LEAST transparent and most corrupt administration in our lives. Nixon is envious.
The real concern is not as much that people may be unqualified when chosen, but that the State Department doesn’t appear to have an effective program of preparing them for their Senate hearings–leaving it obvious that they haven’t even read the Wikipedia article–and thereby insulting the country to which they are being posted. Either this is a colossal failure or a deliberate move by the “permanent” staff to be sure that the political appointees get no respect.
Or, maybe I’m just being too critical……… What do the rest of you think? Has America’s time as a ‘shining star’ come to an end? Do we, maybe, need to rethink the way our society operates… you know, maybe in a more ‘Humanistic’ style… instead of by the disasterous ‘Christian inspired’ way we’ve operated under for 237 years, and which has turned US into the Country we now are….. Or is it already too late US?
I’m beginning to see a very disturbing pattern here, involving the Country that, at one time I felt was the ‘Greatest’… way back in my childhood, 60 years ago, but which, has since, fallen way down to right near the bottom, of my list of desireable places to live. An entire list of.. ‘Unqualified Presidents’…. making disasterous decisions for this country’s population, and for the Planet in general…
Something’s just float naturally…..
Economic situation in the country completely depends on government’s policy. The main thing is to vote for responsible, reliable, wise candidate who will raise the level of your cash flows. Options performed on the Internetwill also help to manage finances.
I just simply don’t believe it. I was at an Obama rally where I heard Mr. O talk about Hope and Change. He promised that if elected things would be different around Washington. So who am I to believe, the main stream press that tells me Mr O. is just like any number of his predecessors or Mr. O that says he is a wonderful god like person that we should believe in all situations? I had my mind made up at that first Obama rally in Feb 2008. I knew a charlatan when I heard one.
Oh wow, Colleen Bell sounds like she rehearsed as hard for her hearing as Sarah Palin did for her interview with Katie Couric. Seldom does one see a better example of Miss Teen South Carolina-style incoherence than that. Surprised she didn’t say “I can see Hungary from my house.” Or “OK, I don’t know much about Hungary, but I loved the Gabor sisters.” Or maybe “What is US Americans’ strategic interest in Hungary? Well, we have a strategic interest in Hungary because we don’t want US Americans or any people in the world to be Hungary. We want everyone to have enough food to eat.”
“It is not only a credibility issue for the United States…”
I’m pretty sure US credibility is not all the great to begin with after torture, rendition, imprisonment without trial or finding, invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, NSA spying, attacking Libya, slaughtering innocent people in drone/aircraft/missile attacks, backing terrorists in Syria and the recent Pyatt/Nuland revelations indicating that the US is actively seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
The president doesn’t have much to lose at this point.
Looks like our wonderfully unbiased Senate go along with the Chirade too.
Ben Sanders
Is it not the case that people capable of raising large amounts of funding have clearly shown significant skill in the art of persuading people to do things? Is that not a substantially useful skill for an ambassador to have?
=========================
Ambassadors are not always preaching to the choir.
So, the answer to your question is “it depends on which country” the proposed Ambassador is being appointed to.
“Recent nominations highlight the continuing spoils system of politicians returning favors for fundraising. A few appointments highlight this practice has not ended. Appointing the unqualified to the diplomatic service on the mere reward for political fundraising raises the question of importance our government places on foreign policy between the United States and other Nations.” – Darren
Indeed.
We have more members in military marching bands than we have in the relevant diplomatic corps.
There has been some conversation about changing that:
(American Feudalism – 8). Old habits are hard to kick, so we will see.
Is it not the case that people capable of raising large amounts of funding have clearly shown significant skill in the art of persuading people to do things? Is that not a substantially useful skill for an ambassador to have?
I think that what FDR did with Joseph Kennedy shows that the real work is done by the professional diplomats in any case. Old Joe has been called the worst US ambassador to the Court of St. James, and he was so bad FDR simply ignored him and ran things around him. The main thing political appointees bring is access to the President and money to the Embassy. The ambassadors are expected to give great parties and socialize with the important people. A poor career diplomat in London or Tokyo will not have the personal resources to do the job. It is nice if they have some smarts about their job before, but as the business schools like to claim, a good manager can manage anything. They can take a crash course on the language and history and politics before they take up their posts or on the job.
Also, a lot of career types are not that great either for political reasons since the McCarthy era destroyed the professional corps and left some really bad precedents and people in place. The Brits and Germans seem to do a pretty good job with their diplomats.
Not that one counter example refutes the several examples given, but didn’t President Obama appoint Jon Huntsman Jr as ambassador to China? And wasn’t Jon Huntsmen eminently qualified? And are you asserting that the Huntsman clan were major contributors to the Obama campaign?
To quote the late, great Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago: “That’s the biggest Hocus Pocus Dominocus to ever hit this city”.
Good one Darren. The good news is that the career diplomats due most of the heavy lifting. The bad news is that these political appointees create more work for the real diplomats!