America’s Shaky Ambassadors

Meet Jim Oberwetter, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which is America’s largest oil supplier and a key strategic partner in the war on terror. Mr. Oberwetter had never set foot in the desert kingdom before he became Ambassador two years ago. His resume boasts a stint as chairman of the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies on behalf of over 400 oil and gas interests in Washington D.C., and work lobbying for the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, but no knowledge of Arabic. More importantly perhaps, his former employer, Hunt Consolidated Oil, gave $250,000 to Bush’s reelection campaign. Mr. Oberwetter is, in short, a typical American ambassador.

Across the Atlantic, Britain’s last American representative was William S. Farish, millionaire horse breeder and Bush family friend, perhaps as famous for gifting Bush Senior the White House dog, Millie, as for anything else. Reputedly shy by nature, Farish decided not to hold press conferences for the year preceding the Iraq War and further condemned America’s already abysmal reputation in the British press by refusing to answer journalists’ phone calls. In fact the British public noticed little difference when he left thirteen months ahead of schedule, leaving America’s embassy to its closest ally leaderless for a year. He was succeeded in 2004 by Robert Holmes Tuttle, owner of the Beverly Hills based Tuttle-Click Automotive Group, and contributor of $198,725 to GOP causes over the last presidential term. Like Oberwetter, neither Farish nor Tuttle had previous diplomatic experience.

Such stories mark a broader trend of ambassadors appointed for patronage, not skills. From the Floridian property developer serving as Ambassador to Portugal to the Ohio industrialist turned Ambassador to Germany—who apparently compensated for his lack of German language skills with a $561,995 donation to the GOP—experience is no longer a prerequisite for appointment. Instead, fundraising, campaigning, and lobbying ability at home now determine who will represent America in foreign lands.

It wasn’t always this way. The ambassadorship to the United Kingdom was once seen as a breeding ground for national leaders—five ambassadors went on to the Presidency, four to the Vice Presidency, and ten to serve as Secretaries of State. Benjamin Franklin used his diplomatic posting to France to secure support in the War of Independence. Thomas Jefferson honed his political skills in dealings with the French revolutionary governments while posted there.

Of course, defenders of our current batch of ambassadors rightly point out that this administration was not the first to put the suitcase of cash before the diplomatic caché. Presidential scholars suggest the shift came last century, when Franklin Roosevelt appointed an especially generous donor, Joseph Kennedy, as his Ambassador to Britain. Since then it has all been downhill. President Nixon is reputed to have once told his Chief of Staff that “anybody who wants to be an ambassador must at least give $250,000.” In 1980, Congress even felt the need to legislate that campaign contributions may not influence ambassador selection.

That law clearly hasn’t worried the present administration. Four-fifths of America’s current ambassadors to European Union nations gave donations to Republican campaigns in the last election cycle. Latvia has the honor of hosting a former Bush ‘super ranger’—someone who raised more than $300,000 for the 2004 campaign. In all, Bush’s first 35 political appointees to the diplomatic corps gave an average of $141,110 to GOP campaigns between 1999-2000.

This would be almost comical, if it were not for the dire effects that bad ambassadors can have. America’s war on terror depends on winning the hearts and minds of the world’s people as much as it depends on any military campaign. Unfortunately, a recent survey from the Pew Research Center suggests that America is losing the public relations war. The report stated that 70% of global respondents agreed it was “good for the US to feel vulnerable after the attacks [of September 11],” 80% of Middle-Eastern respondents felt that “US policy caused September 11,” and a majority of Pakistani citizens expressed confidence that bin Laden would “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

This administration has acknowledged the danger of such negative perceptions, appointing former Bush aide Karen Hughes as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy with the explicit mission of improving America’s image abroad. Yet it is the face on the ground that is most visible. And in the United Kingdom, that face now happens to be one of a Beverly Hills car dealer.

America’s predilection for lousy ambassadors also has serious practical consequences. The Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, like any other ambassador, is charged with managing America’s trade relationships, maintaining strong ties with the government, and coordinating responses to terrorist threats. And contrary to popular myth, these are not duties that can, or should, be undertaken by lower level, if more experienced, bureaucrats in the embassy. When prime ministers, journalists and police chiefs communicate with an American embassy they want to speak to the person in charge because they know that only one person is directly accountable to the President. And in Saudi Arabia right now that person is a Texan oil lobbyist on sabbatical.

John F. Kennedy ’40, in the fourth 1960 Presidential debate, pledged to “throughout the world appoint the best people we can get, ambassadors who can speak the language, not merely people who made a political contribution.” Today, in an age of globalization and terrorism, the need is greater than ever. That means having an ambassador to Saudi Arabia who can speak Arabic and explain America’s actions in a hostile region. It means having an ambassador to the United Kingdom who will engage a cynical British public in open debate. More than anything it means taking seriously once more how we select the bearers of the American eagle abroad.



Lewis Bollard ’09 lives in Grays Hall.