Laura Corin Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Please - no references to how this or previous administrations managed this better or worse. The radio news today mentioned that the US delegation to the G20 meeting was 'flying blind' to a certain extent, because the administration lacked ambassadors in place in many of the countries that would be represented. I believe that ambassadors are appointed by the incoming president, and that it often takes time to get everyone in place. Is there any leeway for an incoming president to ask an existing ambassador to stay on for a bit? How about other appointments? It just seems like an awful lot to arrange all at once. Thank you Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K&Rs Mom Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I don't have documentation to back this up, but it was my understanding that an ambassador would stay until he is told not to - that the incoming president could leave them in their jobs if he wanted, and replace the ones he saw fit. I know it works that way for most domestic civil-service jobs (FIL served under at least 5 presidents). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Please - no references to how this or previous administrations managed this better or worse. The radio news today mentioned that the US delegation to the G20 meeting was 'flying blind' to a certain extent, because the administration lacked ambassadors in place in many of the countries that would be represented. I believe that ambassadors are appointed by the incoming president, and that it often takes time to get everyone in place. Is there any leeway for an incoming president to ask an existing ambassador to stay on for a bit? How about other appointments? It just seems like an awful lot to arrange all at once. Thank you Laura Your question intrigued me so I spent some time trying to find information on how ambassadors are appointed, etc. and I found some very interesting information. The short version is that they are representatives of the sitting president and so I would *guess* that the vacant seats are vacant because either 1) the sitting president does not want the previous ambassador there or; 2) the previous administration's ambassador does not wish to represent the new president. I drew this conclusion from some of the information below as many European ambassadors fund their own events out of their own pockets. This is just a guess on my part, but after reading this page, that is a likely the reason. I cannot see an ambassador who was a political appointment by one president of one political persuasion wishing to pay for and represent a president of another. But again, this is guesswork on my part based upon the reading on that page. The president, however, may also select individuals from private life with sufficient expertise. These are called political appointees, since they normally serve only for a single presidency. While such appointments include political contributors, they also include distinguished former senators, representatives, governors, cabinet members, and military officers, as well as prominent industrialists and businessmen, cultural figures, and journalists. For example, the U.S. ambassadors to the UN have included a past presidential candidate, a chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, a former secretary of state, a former senator, and distinguished individuals from private life, in addition to a number of career diplomats. The existence of a pool of career diplomats makes it possible for the president to utilize experts both within the administration and as special representatives. A significant number of ambassadors have served as presidential advisers and as assistant and under secretaries of state. Political appointees are used regularly in certain posts by all administrations, especially at embassies in Europe. This is necessitated by the very limited funding provided for American diplomatic missions by Congress, which renders it virtually impossible to appoint regular foreign service officers to U.S. missions in European capitals where the cost of living, including the cost of receptions that are mandatory for national holidays and diplomatic occasions, is extremely high. The entire annual entertainment allowance for most U.S. embassies would not pay the cost of the single reception or party. Therefore, presidents appoint independently wealthy individuals to European posts, since only individuals with the wherewithal and willingness to spend large amounts of their own funds can entertain in the style expected. For this reason, U.S. embassies in Europe are invariably staffed with wealthy presidential supporters and contributors to presidential campaigns, regardless of the administration in power. The appointment of ambassadors requires confirmation by the Senate, and ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. The head of any mission normally holds the rank of ambassador for protocol purposes, regardless of whether or not he or she has been appointed as a permanent envoy and confirmed by the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 My understanding (which may not be completely accurate) is that Ambassadors generally fall into one of two categories, "political" appointees and "career diplomats". These are in some sense "informal categories" because either serve at the sufferance of the President and are subject to Senate confirmation. Where the distinction is important in practical terms, is the understanding that "political appointees", which include almost all the "highest-profile" Ambassadors understand their terms end with the Presidency of those who appointed them. A President could extend the term of either a "political" or "career" Ambassador, but the former would be unlikely except in the case of a sudden death of a President (in which case a Vice-President of the same party takes over). But in ordinary circumstances, particularly with an opposition party coming to power, all "political" Ambassadors are replaced. And some, but not necessarily all, "career appointments" are retained. A President could keep an Ambassador (even one seen as a "political" appointment from another party) if he wanted to, but such an instance does not leap to my mind. Not to say it hasn't happened. Just as Mr Obama retained George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. It's just that the G20 Ambassadorships are seen as "plumb" jobs, and these tend to go as "rewards" to long-time supporters of the President and his party. Where the Ambassadorship to Togo might stay with a "career" diplomat. This I think is generally correct. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 Is the hiatus something that people in the US notice/are concerned about/think should be changed? Thanks Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim in Appalachia Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 who was asked to stay until a replacement was found. Mr. Ashe who is in Poland. He is from TN, and was appointed by Bush. The paper had a statement from him saying he was honored to stay until a replacement was found. I don't know if he is still there. I lost track if someone new was appointed yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.