POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS OF U.S. AMBASSADORS

Since World War II, around 30% of US ambassadors have been presidential appointments

There have been some successful political appointees. Charles Rivkin, the U.S. Ambassador to France was lauded on both sides of the Atlantic for developing close ties in Paris and raising Foreign Service morale. Due to prior experience, some political Ambassadors are more effective than others. Rivkin, for example, had long standing connections in France. He was fluent in French and lived in the country prior to his appointment. Rivkin also had a long business career with strong ties to the French media. According to the Department of State Office of Inspector General’s report in May 2012, Rivkin placed new emphasis on support for US exports of goods and services into France. The report called Rivkin a "dynamic and visionary non-career Ambassador", and credited him with expanding the U.S. Embassy’s public diplomacy activities, particularly through his use of social media and his appearances on French national television.  Rivkin's tenure as ambassador to France received highly favorable reviews by both State Department audits and from his embassy's employees.

Not all political appointees are created equal and some, like Rivkin certainly do have more qualifications than others, even if they are not in the Foreign Service.

Most political Ambassadors do benefit from the knowledge of experienced deputies from the career Foreign Service. These deputies usually have strong relationships with the country and can help the Ambassador navigate unfamiliar territory. Additionally, in many Western European countries, the United States has longstanding relationships aside from the ambassadorship.

There is no question that Ambassadors should have useful knowledge of the language and understanding of the history, the culture, the economic and political institutions and the interests of the country. While some political appointees may meet these standards, many fall short. This said, a political appointee held in high esteem, with close ties to the head of state generally has better political access than a career diplomat and can prove very effective provided he/she has a good grasp of key issues. Because an appointee’s post is limited, they are more willing to engage in bold diplomacy. Thus political appointees are useful for ‘special projects’ or during times of rapid political change. Political appointees have an advantage over career diplomats because they tend to bring innovation and are more willing to challenge the bureaucracy and fight institutional lethargy and they usually have extensive management and leadership experience.

There is no ‘one-size-fits all. An ideal Ambassador- professional or political- has leadership; a blend of  a modern executive with someone skilled in statecraft. The type of Ambassador chosen for a post also depends on the nature of diplomatic relations between the two states. Equally important is the team of diplomats supporting an Ambassador. Even the most able professional Head of Mission with a failing staff will have a miserable experience. A good political appointee that is open to suggestion, supported by a good team can together work miracle.

Many political appointees prove better diplomats than career diplomats. The real problem is not that political leaders get to appoint a proportion of Ambassadors. It is that the State Department has no way of determining what makes an Ambassador successful. There is no professionalization to the profession of being an American diplomat, and that is a far graver problem for U.S. foreign policy than the scattered cases of spectacularly ill-qualified political appointees.

Since the foreign service does so little to educate and train its professionals what is needed to improve the appointments system is

1. A construct for determining what makes an Ambassador successful,
2. Metrics for grading performance,
3. Training in those areas for political and career ambassadors,
4. Collection of data,
5. A transparent assessment processes,
6. Performance reviews for individuals and units (Embassies, directorates within the State Department) and
7. Consequences — both positive and negative — that incentivize improvement.

It will be difficult to develop criteria to judge performance, and there are many factors that go into a complex mix. But that is no less true for judging the performance of combat commanders and business leaders and even politicians. As no less an authority than Bismarck said, "Politics is not a science … but an art."

U.S. professional diplomats sometimes come across as believing they know better than the people elected to run the country and what the country’s priorities should be. That a third of U.S. diplomats are ardent supporters of the person elected to run the country is no bad thing. Especially when U.S. professional diplomats haven’t bothered to establish the standards and practices to ensure their own performance is better than that of amateurs.

Political Appointments of U.S. Ambassadors in EU Countries under Obama

1. Austria
2. Belgium
3. Czech Republic
4. Denmark
5. European Union
6. Finland
7. France & Monaco
8. Germany
9. Hungary
10. Ireland
11. Italy & San Marino
12. Luxembourg
13. Portugal
14. Spain & Andorra
15. Sweden
16. United Kingdom