Tag Archives: U.S. State Department

Now, let’s pray diplomatic crises don’t erupt

Donald J. Trump’s unconventional approach to virtually everything presidential has taken yet another bizarre turn.

The president-elect has issued an order for all U.S. diplomats — ambassadors, if you will — turn in their letters of resignation and vacate their posts on Inauguration Day.

All of ’em, I tell ya. They will have to leave diplomacy to the pros on their staffs; all political appointees have to go. Pronto! Immediately!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-break-with-past-obama-ambassadors-are-told-to-quit-posts-by-inauguration-day/ar-BBxWVBm?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

It’s way too early to tell what this means, other than the obvious, which is that Trump is breaking with decades of diplomatic tradition.

But, hey — tradition, shmadition. Who needs it when you’ve got such a successful businessman and dealmaker at the helm?

My concern is this: We’d better not have a diplomatic crisis develop in, say, one of the nuclear-power nations where we now have embassies in the days immediately after Trump takes office as president.

Think it can’t happen? It surely can.

What’s more, the directive has put many of our senior diplomats in a world of major inconvenience. As the New York Times reports: “In Costa Rica, Ambassador Stafford Fitzgerald Haney is hunting for a house or an apartment as his family — which includes four school-age children and his wife, who has been battling breast cancer — struggles to figure out how to avoid a move back to the United States with five months left in the school year, according to the diplomats.”

I know that’s of little direct concern to most Americans. My bigger worry is that in countries on the front lines of, say, open warfare — places such as Jordan, Israel, Turkey — there well could be a crisis explode while we have no one at his or her post standing ready to speak for the United States of America.

Do our allies around the world have reason to be a bit jittery at this news? I believe they do.

Make peace or deal with Hamas?

Put yourself in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s shoes.

You govern a country of some 8,000 square miles surrounded by nations that at one time or another vowed to exterminate you and your constituents. Yes, you’ve made peace with a couple of those nations — Jordan and Egypt. The rest of the region remains iffy.

You’re in the middle of peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and then you learn that the leader of that government has brokered a deal with one of the world’s most ferocious terrorist organizations, Hamas. That organization has orchestrated terrorist attacks on your country from the Gaza Strip, which the Palestinian Authority governs.

The PA now wants to form a “unity government” that includes Hamas.

Do they want peace with Israel or not? Netanyahu has called off peace talks because the PA has formed that arrangement with Hamas, which still vows to exterminate Israel.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-calls-peace-talks-after-palestinian-deal-n88726

Can you really blame the Israeli prime minister? I cannot.

Netanyahu is furious with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for agreeing to the Hamas deal.

Having seen some of the damage that Hamas has inflicted on southern Israel myself, I understand fully why Netanyahu has called off the peace talks. I was part of a group that toured Israel in the spring of 2009 and we saw damage done by rocket fire in Sderot and Ashkelon, near the border with Gaza, which had erupted in violence prior to our arrival in Israel.

It’s a blow to Secretary of State John Kerry, who persuaded the sides to talk to each other after they didn’t speak for five years. Kerry still believes a path to peace is still open, but it’s now been littered by the presence of Hamas in this arrangement with one of the principals in the talks.

“He can’t have it both ways,” Netanyahu said of Abbas. “He has to choose: Peace with Israel or a pact with Hamas.”

Netanyahu is right to be angry.

Clinton vs. Christie in 2016

I know it’s early. I shouldn’t even be thinking like this. But I’m starting to lick my chops at the prospect of a 2016 presidential campaign between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chris Christie.

Neither of them has declared their intention to run, although both are beginning to act ever so slightly as though they’re interested in seeking their party’s nomination. Clinton already has run once for the Democratic nomination. Christie has been the Republican governor of New Jersey for three years.

Both are dynamic presences within their own key constituencies. They’re fierce defenders of their records. They’re politically savvy.

Why Clinton?

She might have the most comprehensive resume for the job since, perhaps, George H.W. Bush. Former first lady, former U.S. senator from New York, former secretary of state. Prior to all of that, she was Arkansas’s first lady and at one time was an accomplished lawyer. She’s been close to the center of power, given her marriage to one Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States.

Some pundits have compared her White House inevitability with that of General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, who was deemed unbeatable during the 1952 presidential campaign. Turns out they were right about Ike.

Why Christie?

He is a no-nonsense guy. Christie is unafraid of the ideologues within his own party. He rolls up his sleeves and works for New Jersey. My favorite moment of the 2012 political season occurred when a Fox News Channel talking head, Steve Doocy, asked Christie if GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney would visit the Jersey Shore, which had been battered by Hurricane Sandy … on the heels of President Obama’s tour of the destruction. Christie’s response, in effect, was: I don’t give a damn whether he comes here or stays away; I’ve got a job to do. He added that he wasn’t the least bit interested in how it might affect the presidential campaign.

I ought not to engage in this kind of speculation. I’m doing it anyway with the hope that it comes to pass.

What is to know about Japan?

Caroline Kennedy’s appointment as the next U.S. ambassador to Japan has raised some interesting – but altogether pointless – questions about her qualifications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/world/asia/caroline-kennedy-picked-to-be-ambassador-to-japan.html?_r=1&

Some observers are wondering aloud about just what the late President Kennedy’s daughter knows about Japan. Still others have responded rhetorically by wondering what most ambassadors know about these plum assignments when they come from the president. What did former Vice President and U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale know about Japan when he became ambassador? How about former Sen. Howard Baker, or former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield? Was the former U.S. House Speaker Tom Foley a Japan expert when he took the job? Hardly.

These prime ambassadorial appointments are political in nature. They generally go to big fundraisers, political heavy hitters – such as Mondale, Foley Baker or Mansfield – or individuals who’ve worked hard to elect the president.

If we’re going to ask about Caroline Kennedy’s knowledge of the intricacies of Japanese culture, we could ask the same thing about the late Teel Bivins, the Amarillo state senator who served for a time as U.S. ambassador to Sweden. What did the Republican senator know about that country when he took the post offered by President George W. Bush? My guess is “not much.” But Bivins was a smart man, well-educated and could bone up quickly on almost any challenge presented to him.

We can’t ask him now, given that Bivins is no longer with us. But he got that appointment because he raised a lot of money for Bush and worked hard in contested states to get him elected in 2000.

Ambassadors – particularly those who are posted in important countries – are meant to be the face and voice of the U.S. government. The embassies where they work are staffed by many career foreign service officers who’ve made it their mission to learn about the countries where they serve. These foreign service officers, if they’re faithful to the ambassador and to our government, will make the ambassador look good.

Caroline Kennedy is a fine choice to be our next ambassador to Japan. She is just as qualified as any of the individuals who’ve taken that post.