The Washington Post

Association’s new guidelines for ambassadors don’t have any teeth


The cringe-inducing performances in recent weeks by some of President Obama’s ambassadorial nominees have raised expectations that the American Foreign Service Association will weigh in next week with some revolutionary guidelines to revamp the nomination process.

Don’t count on it. Thoughtful, yes. Explosive, hardly. Our sense of the guidelines, which AFSA began working on last summer, is that they’re fairly anodyne suggestions, not a call for stricter criteria.

Al Kamen, an award-winning columnist on the national staff of The Washington Post, created the “In the Loop” column in 1993. View Archive

An early draft listed a handful of general criteria to evaluate ambassador wannabes: “Leadership, character and proven interpersonal skills.” “Understanding of high level policy.” “U.S. interests and values.” Management skills. And knowing something about foreign affairs in general and the relevant country in particular. (Putting that one last apparently bothered some board members.)

“What we would like is that everyone appointed to these posts meet the same standard of qualifications, and that includes our people,” said Kristen Fernekes, spokeswoman for AFSA, which represents more than 16,000 Foreign Service personnel. AFSA is not going to rate nominees the way the American Bar Association does with judges.

“It is our intent to provide this document as a useful tool to everyone who participates in the nomination and confirmation process,” Fernekes said.

The AFSA board approved the new guidelines in early January — before Obama bundler-nominees Colleen Bell (tapped for Hungary), George Tsunis (Norway) and Noah Mamet (Argentina) faced the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The panel approved Bell and Tsunis and hasn’t voted on Mamet. (Some Foreign Service folks have taken to calling them, most unfairly and uncharitably, Larry, Curly and Moe.)

Also, the AFSA board approved the draft on a 17 to 5 vote, we hear, with all four former ambassadors on the board voting against the guidelines, apparently feeling the new ones watered down the 1980 Foreign Service Act’s useless section on ambassador selection.

That section also orders new ambassadors, within six months of being at their overseas posts, to send the Senate and House foreign affairs committees “a report describing his or her own foreign language competence” in the country’s main language. We’re told no one files these.

The act also says that campaign contributions “should not be a factor” in picking ambassadors.

Quick Loop Fix: Maybe Congress could change the “should not” to “shall not” and put in criminal penalties for violators? That might lead to some improvement, at least where complete novices are sent to really dicey diplomatic posts, such as Argentina and Hungary and, now, a very upset Norway.

By sea, not by land

There’s chatter that former House member Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), who was named head of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. seven months ago, may be moving to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (Both agencies are in the Transportation Department.)

This got enviros, unsure of her green bona fides, worried about her being in charge of an agency that deals with fuel-efficiency standards and such.

NHTSA employees might get concerned about her management style. We recall a Sunlight Foundation study in 2012 showing that Sutton had the highest staff turnover rate in the House over a period of two years.

(We know what you’re thinking, but GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had only the fourth-highest staff turnover rate.)

Thursday afternoon, after a couple of tries Wednesday and then Thursday morning to contact Sutton, a spokesman wrote to say that there’s “absolutely no truth” to such rumors and that she’s staying put at the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.

So worriers should just relax.

Secretive regimes

And now, more news from the front in the never-ending battle to pry formerly secret documents from the Pentagon. The latest skirmish involves a 50-plus-year-old, formerly “top secret” document going back to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

The National Security Archive sent a Freedom of Information Act request for the information years ago for the 40th anniversary — and then the 50th (it’s a patient organization) — of the crisis, which ended when Moscow removed its missiles from Cuba and Washington removed its missiles from another country.

Among the documents the Pentagon sent over was one that talked about having inspections certifying the missile removals by people “enjoying confidence” of the Soviets, us, the Cubans and [deleted].

The National Security Archive appealed. The organization’s director, Tom Blanton, tells us that while the Pentagon “wouldn’t give up the name” of the country where Washington placed missiles, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had broadcast it on Moscow radio at the time and the State Department had published it many years ago in its history of the crisis. (As had countless histories of the events.)

Still not good enough for the Pentagon, which turned down the appeal in a denial letter from William Brazis, deputy director of administration and management.

The Air Force, meanwhile, has been much more forthcoming, releasing the full text of a Joint Chiefs of Staff document from that period, proposing provocative actions such as a hilarious “virtual” amphibious assault plan. (After all, the actual assault, at the Bay of Pigs, didn’t work out so well.) The chiefs also proposed an extensive “sabotage campaign against power facilities” and also to “assassinate leading Russians and Cuban communists.” The Pentagon excised those portions.

The National Security Archive is putting out the documents Friday.

Oh, and the name of the top-secret country? It’s Turkey. (But don’t tell anyone where you got that.)

The blog:
intheloop. Twitter: @InTheLoopWP.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
Republicans debated Saturday night. The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Dan Balz says...
Rarely has the division between Trump and party elites been more apparent. Trump trashed one of the most revered families in Republican politics and made a bet that standing his ground is better than backing down. Drawing boos from the audience, Trump did not flinch. But whether he will be punished or rewarded by voters was the unanswerable question.
GOP candidates react to Justice Scalia's death
I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish.
Sen. Marco Rubio, attacking Sen. Ted Cruz in Saturday night's very heated GOP debate in South Carolina. Soon after, Cruz went on a tirade in Spanish.
The Fix asks The State's political reporter where the most important region of the state is.
The State's Andy Shain says he could talk about Charleston, which represents a little bit of everything the state has to offer from evangelicals to libertarians, and where Ted Cruz is raising more money than anywhere else. In a twist, Marco Rubio is drawing strong financial support from more socially conservative Upstate. That said, Donald Trump is bursting all the conventional wisdom in the state. So maybe the better answer to this question is, "Wherever Trump is."
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

March 6: Democratic debate

on CNN, in Flint, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read


Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.