End political appointments to embassies.

• Author: Berlind, Alan
• Position: Viewpoint essay

Editor's Note: As of July 10, the scorecard on the American Foreign Service Association website (http://www.afsa.org/) showed that the Obama administration has thus far named 32 political appointees to ambassadorships, as compared to 25 career diplomats. Since World War II, the overall ratio has been about 30% political, 70% career. This essay calls for ending the longstanding, bipartisan tradition of rewarding political contributors and friends with ambassadorial posts.--Ed.

For half a century, successive U.S. administrations of various stripes have overcome their differences and emulated their predecessors in one important respect. Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, have put ideology aside and, to put it bluntly but precisely, sold comfortable ambassadorial residences with all their finery to wealthy campaign contributors possessing no particular qualifications for the related and crucial tasks of representing the United States abroad, providing expert advice to Washington on matters affecting American foreign policy and security, and carrying out policy as decided by the president of the United States. President Barack Obama appears intent on continuing this practice, which constitutes a serious offense to the governments and international organizations so treated, subjects the United States to ridicule abroad, and encourages public partisan posturing at Senate hearings. The American Foreign Service, committed to loyally serving the president chosen by the American voter, suffers on the sidelines.

The great majority of the prizes handed out to campaign donors and party hacks are in Europe: American embassies in Rome, Stockholm, Vienna, London, Paris, Helsinki, Bern, and Brussels, among others, and international organizations also located in dazzling capitals. The argument that we are rewarding our oldest friends and allies is nothing but a Washington myth not subscribed to by the host governments or their people. Nobody out there takes seriously the idea that the latest rich envoy will have the ear of the President or that his appointment should be taken as a sign of special interest. (Were this simplistic notion to be accepted as intended, governments and peoples elsewhere could reasonably ask what insult is meant by the appointment of a mere Foreign Service professional to their capital.) One is reminded of the old practice of sending black ambassadors to Africa, which scored no points with the hosts and suggested...