American Ambassadors

The Past, Present, and Future of America's Diplomats

D. Jett

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137392763
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Some of those named as American ambassadors are the product of both a time-honored tradition and a thinly veiled form of corruption. 'American Ambassadors' explains how a person becomes an ambassador, where they go, what they do and why, in today's ever more globalized world, they are more important than ever.

CHAPTER 1

A Brief History of the Title

If it were not for the charm and skill of some of the earliest American diplomats, the United States might still be a British colony. Benjamin Franklin was one of the first official envoys sent abroad as the struggle for independence got under way. His diplomatic efforts were so successful at eliciting the support of Louis XVI for the revolution that France played a vital role in determining its outcome.

Although the purpose of America’s diplomats has remained essentially the same over the years—to protect and promote the interests of their country—the background, preparation, and professionalism of today’s diplomats have changed significantly since the time of Franklin. In order to appreciate the importance of diplomats, and in particular ambassadors, to the country’s security today, it helps to understand how their role has evolved as the United States has grown from a colony to the world’s only superpower.

There were three stages in this evolution. The first period lasted a century and was characterized by the fact that virtually all American diplomats were political appointees and none bore the title “ambassador.” They had varying degrees of ability, and their tenures in their positions were likely to end with the inauguration of the next president. There was no thought given to creating a cadre of career diplomats, as it was believed anyone could carry out the business of government. That belief, coupled with a degree of distrust of those exposed to foreign influences, led to the frequent replacement of the men who were appointed to diplomatic positions. The only thing they could depend on was that they had little prospect for staying in the job for long.

The second period, which lasted the next 60 years from the end of the nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth, saw the gradual professionalization of the civil service and the creation of a corps of career diplomats who had a degree of job security. Entrance and promotion based on merit became the norm, and most diplomats could expect that their jobs would not come to an end the next time there was a new occupant of the White House. During this period, the title of ambassador began to be used and the percentage of career ambassadors gradually rose from next to nothing to about 70 percent of the total.

During the third stage, occurring over the past 60 years, the 30/70 ratio between political appointees and career officers as ambassadors has remained remarkably constant. This consistency persisted despite the fact that during this period the number of ambassadors expanded greatly, as did the number of interests they were supposed to protect. Because the Cold War was a worldwide struggle, and given the new nations that came into being as a result of decolonization, more ambassadors were needed to be dispatched to even the farthest-flung corners of the globe.

The Early Years—The Sometimes-Able Amateurs of a Third-Rate Power

In the earliest days of the republic, the focus of the founding fathers was on setting up a government and ensuring its survival. Benjamin Franklin played a key role in that effort in many ways, including by being considered America’s first ambassador even though he was never given the title. He was sent to Paris in 1776 with the critically important task of ensuring French support for America’s struggle for independence from Britain. Despite the fact that he did not conform to diplomatic conventions in dress or other formalities, he performed brilliantly because of his charm and intellect. Had he not been such a success, the American Revolution might well have had a different outcome.

In 1781, when American legislators created a new government under the Articles of Confederation, that new government included a Department of Foreign Affairs. A few “ministers” were dispatched to key European countries to handle the new country’s official business, and a handful of “consuls” were named to help Americans do business overseas.

In the country’s early years, anything that hinted at special status for a government official was considered to be against republican principles. Even though Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution gave the president the power to appoint “ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,” for the country’s first 115 years, it was represented abroad only by men with the title of minister or consul. An ambassador was considered to be the emissary of a king, and the title was believed to be inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian society.

Having fought for independence from a British king, Americans were presumably uncomfortable with lofty titles or anything that hinted at special status. This distaste for giving, or even receiving, such honors is also reflected in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9, which mainly describes things the Congress may not do, states: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Nonetheless, diplomatic titles mattered even to the founding fathers who were sent on the earliest diplomatic missions. John Adams, who was to become the second president, was one of those who cared about such things. As Jack Rakove notes in his book on the invention of America:

Adams had been sorely miffed when he mistakenly thought that Congress had made him a mere commissioner while giving John Jay the higher rank of minister plenipotentiary. A similar slight had marred his previous trip, when his name appeared below that of Arthur Lee in the commission for France even though Adams held weightier credentials as lawyer and public servant.¹

Despite the sensitivity to titles that Adams displayed, those that were given to the earliest American diplomats were modest, but so was the entire foreign policy establishment of the time. In 1789, Congress passed an act that changed the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of State, because that department was given responsibility for maintaining certain domestic records as well as handling international relations. That same year, President Washington appointed fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson to be the first secretary of state.

When Jefferson assumed the position in March 1790, his bureaucratic empire consisted of four clerks, a translator, a messenger, and an annual budget for domestic operations of a bit less than $8,000, including his salary. The total expenditures for the department, both in Washington and abroad, the next year totaled $56,600.²

Reflecting the egalitarian sentiment of the time, Jefferson made clear he had no use for the formality and intrigue that was characteristic of European diplomacy. He had enough experience as a diplomat, however, to realize that the United States had to be well represented overseas if the country was to be taken seriously. He and Washington lobbied Congress for the funds to support a small number of missions abroad headed by men with the title of minister. Each man was charged with reporting on political events in the country to which he was assigned and for handling relations with that government.

This small but growing number of American envoys brought with them a new style of diplomacy consistent with the values of their newly independent nation. This style was reflected in their dress as well as their behavior. Beginning with Franklin, American representatives abroad wore unpretentious clothing and adopted simple manners, which contrasted sharply with the formality and ostentation of European courts.³

The spirit of the era and the limitations of the new nation are aptly described by George Herring in From Colony to Superpower:

In keeping with ideals of republican simplicity—and to save money—the administration did not appoint anyone to the rank of ambassador. That “may be the custom of the old world,” Jefferson informed the emperor of Morocco, “but it is not ours.” The “foreign service” consisted of a minister to France, chargés d’affaires in England, Spain, and Portugal, and an agent at Amsterdam. In 1790, the United States opened its first consulate in Bordeaux, a major source of arms, ammunition, and wine during the Revolution. That same year, it appointed twelve consuls and also named six foreigners as vice-consuls since there were not enough qualified Americans to fill the posts.⁴

When Jefferson became president, he continued and even extended the official disdain for the traditional trappings of diplomacy. He regarded professional diplomats as the “pest[s] of the peace of the world” and, as a result, cut back the country’s extremely small representation abroad to what he considered the essential minimum.⁵ He also put his personal beliefs into practice in his own office by avoiding the pomp and circumstance of his predecessors. In contrast to Washington and Adams, Jefferson made a point of dressing plainly, and he opened the presidential mansion to visitors from all level of society.

Jefferson’s disdain for formality may have been motivated by his personal feelings or by an image he wished to project as president. Some presidents even today seek to deliberately downplay the aura of the office as a way to show they can connect with common people: Jimmy Carter, for instance, insisted on carrying his own bags on trips. When Bill Clinton first took office, it was decided that one way to distinguish him from his Republican predecessor was to have very few formal state dinners for visiting dignitaries.⁶

Whether Jefferson’s motivation was personal or political, his approach did not sit well with some of the more traditionally minded foreign diplomats in Washington at the time. Herring notes:

His disdain for protocol scandalized other members of the small and generally unhappy diplomatic community in Washington. Outraged when received by the president in a tattered bathrobe and slippers and forced at a presidential dinner to conform to the “pell-mell” seating arrangements respecting no rank, the British minister to Washington, Anthony Merry, bitterly protested the affront suffered at the president’s table. Jefferson no doubt privately chuckled at the arrogant Englishman’s discomfiture, but his subsequent codification of republican practices into established procedures betrayed a larger purpose. By adapting the new nation’s forms to its principles, he hoped to establish a uniquely American style of diplomacy.⁷

Although Jefferson apparently enjoyed Merry’s pique, an argument can be made for observing the strictures of diplomatic protocol. It provides a structure in which people from different countries and cultures can relate to one another with little chance of unintentional insults. For instance, if a diplomat’s place at a dinner table is determined by the pecking order of protocol, then both he and his host will know where that is, and a potential insult will be avoided. In this case, Jefferson considered the insult to the British diplomat less important than the image he wanted to project.

Because of Jefferson’s desire to promote that uniquely American image of simplicity, during his term of office, American envoys, even those to the most important countries, only carried the rank of minister plenipotentiary. After the War of 1812 ended, it appeared that America’s survival as an independent nation was no longer in doubt, and it had, according to Herring, “surged to the level of a second-rank power.”⁸ That growing strength and status of the country prompted a bit of title inflation under Jefferson’s successor, James Madison. The official designation for the chiefs of the most important diplomatic missions was elevated to envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.

Diplomatic titles were expanding to keep pace with the overseas influence and interests of a country that was becoming a more important player on the world stage. With its survival assured, the emphasis of American diplomacy shifted to expanding the country’s commerce and avoiding entangling political alliances. To do that effectively required moving beyond Jefferson’s republican principles, his disdain for diplomats, and his desire to keep their numbers to a minimum. In the decade between 1820 and 1830, the number of consuls almost doubled. They were needed to help American businessmen take advantage of commercial opportunities abroad, especially in the newly independent nations in Latin America.

The chief functions of diplomatic posts, which were embassies or legations, were the conducting of traditional diplomacy and the political work involved in the relationship between the United States and the other country. Consular posts, on the other hand, were headed by a consul or consul general and had different tasks. They dealt with commercial and consular matters, such as trade issues and the protection of American businessmen, sailors, and other citizens. Consuls were expected to be largely self-supporting and sustained themselves by the fees they charged for their services.

In contrast, the diplomats made a very meager salary and could not supplement it by selling their services. To make ends meet they were expected to draw on their personal funds, which meant in effect that such jobs were reserved for men from wealthy families. Because of the differences in functions and financial circumstances, the diplomats felt themselves superior to their consular colleagues. This feelin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1 A Brief History of the Title
• 2 Who Gets to Be an Ambassador—The Traditional Route
• 3 The Nontraditional Route
• 4 The Last Steps—Clearance and Confirmation
• 5 What an Ambassador Does
• 6 Where Ambassadors Go
• 7 Why It Matters and How It Might Be Changed
• Appendices
• Notes
• Index