The president can make treaties with foreign countries, subject to Senate approval. He is also in charge of appointing our foreign representatives, usually called ambassadors, to foreign countries, as well as accepting the same on our shores (or not). The maneuverings that take place to fulfill these powers have been much the stuff of the meaning of the office right from its beginning. The president hasn't always had a budget to present to Congress; it was often the other way around. And George Washington thoroughly disliked political parties, and would have rathered we lacked them, though they were well en route to formulation with the state decisions to ratify the constitution creating a fairly clear patchwork of arguments about the nature of popular government; the sides were drawn regardless. The role of titular party leader, too, would be one for the future. And the country itself was a relative international pipsqueak when it decided to create itself.
The president as foreign policy director has always mattered, though. George Washington had to navigate between England and France in his two terms of office, and not merely for philosophical or internally political reasons (though they existed). Those two countries were constantly at each others' throats, at war incessantly for nearly a century and a half before finally calling it quits after Napoleon's defeat. We nonetheless needed trade from each, and each excoriated us for dealing with the other. So we needed a foreign policy that was practical, reflective of the ability of the nation to defend itself (or, back then, the lack thereof), and allowing plenty of room for exchanges of goods and services while leaving the president's door open for discussion.
The people assigned to particular countries reflect that country's priorities. The first ambassador to France? Thomas Jefferson. The first to Great Britain? John Adams. Any questions?
Any way you wish to look at it, a reasonably adept diplomatic service has been essential to the USA's status amidst the international milieu. It's why the position of Secretary of State, once very much internal in focus, came to fill with prestige and vitality. Ambassadors to countries we considered strategic to our interests have become very important people. Here's why:
- Let's say some country that hadn't existed now exists, and wants to have an embassy here. It finds a suitable building (usually on Massachusetts Avenue in DC, but it could be anywhere in the distric near a Metro stop) and asks the president for permission. The president alone gets to say yes because there's no Congressional approval necessary (think about that relative to 45). His approval is called recognition. It means that then our resources are directed toward setting up meetings and making proper communications with that country through that ambassador and our own, appointed of course by the president (but that has Senate approval). Without it, that country simply doesn't exist officially. In the case of China, for instance, we didn't recognize it until 1978 because we were mad that they had turned communist 29 years before that, very much a done deal by then. Nixon had visited in 1972 and had already established relations, but didn't extend recognition because in his scheming mind, he then could play the Chinese against Russia, especially concerning Vietnam, and if he could keep the Russians guessing, so much better for us (He might have been right, player that he was. But he knew his stuff, too, and he had Henry Kissinger, one of the great diplomats of the 20th Century, like him or not, to carry out his wishes. Big difference.).
- If an ambassador is ordered out of a country, it's nearly certain that that country and the ambassador's are going to war and very soon. Why else would they be kicked out?
- If an ambassador leaves the country voluntarily, it's nearly certain that that country's government is about to change, and not peacefully, forces of which look as if they might not be very friendly to our government anyhow.
In any event, the ambassador to a particular country had better be (a) very mature and professional; (b) able to stay very calm; and (c) be perfectly comfortable with articulating our policies toward that country and toward others, especially surrounding it, at a moment's notice. Indeed, the ambassador is the USA in those crucial moments (As in South Vietnam on Nov. 1, 1963, when President Diem was about to be overthrown and called Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge concerning the USA's policy regarding it. Lodge knew that President Kennedy had, through the CIA, given a tacit approval to the overthrow (which he urged Kennedy to support) but told Diem, in a lie, that "It's three a.m. in Washington, and the U.S. government cannot possibly have a view." After which Diem, who Kennedy thought was to be allowed to go into exile, was instead taken away and shot.). And (s)he had better know what's what so as not to lead his/her assigned country astray, thereby creating headaches for the president, secretary of state, and the rest of us.
So if things go down poorly, it can have enormous consequences. On Dec. 7, 1941, two Japanese envoys (ambassadors assigned to do a specific task), who had been ostensibly sent to the U.S. to do negotiations, gave U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull a list of ultimatums that, if the U.S. was unwilling to fulfill, would mean war between the two countries, the idea being that the presentation was to take place just moments before the Japanese planes hit Pearl Harbor, so technically, the attack wouldn't be called a surprise because our government, several hours away by plane, would still have been considered to have 'received' the message. But a technical glitch had prevented the message from being translated from code, so it was given to Hull about two hours after the attack had begun. That is a big, big no-no in diplomacy, where form and observed practices are paramount: These are lies, was the message actually sent to us. All Hull could do, after roasting his two very sorry, helpless guests, was to dismiss them with a nod to the door.
Consider, then, Marie Yovanovitch, career diplomat, who used to be our ambassador to Ukraine. Hers was a country very much on the international firing line, considering its Russian invasion during Barack Obama's presidency. Her role in the USA's positioning against a Russian takeover would be considered, one would think, absolutely vital. It would be good to have such an experienced person on hand there: classy, dignified, and opposite of her bosses, very appropriate.
Consider how she might have felt when she saw that the government she was working for had changed hands and the direction of foreign policy had gone from Secretary of State John Kerry, former U.S. Senator, to Rex Tillerson, oil magnate, who at least had done some interaction, however personally based, with some oil-rich countries. Consider how she might have felt, too, when Tillerson, savaged by a clown president who has both scared the hell out of and 'fallen in love with' the ruler of North Korea all in the same month, resigned and made way for Mike Pompeo, a Jesus freak who sees foreign policy through the will of a Christian god first and foremost, as has been well-documented.
Consider how she might have felt when, in July 2018, the president extolled the virtues of Russian president Vladimir Putin after meeting behind closed doors with him, the contents of which discussion are still unknown. Could they have had anything to do with Ukraine? Would you have liked to have operated under such a cloud?
Nonetheless, Yovanovitch soldiered on until she began to hear that the shyster's shyster, Rudy Giuliani, was actually doing work for the main shyster behind her back. Then she heard the president say that she had done "some really bad things," without anyone having met with her to explain them, without the Secretary of State even mentioning it to her. She also heard that, if she wanted to stick around, she should sell out and tell the press that the president was a really good guy.
After refusing to do that bit of diplomatic extortion, she heard that if she was smart, she should leave the country and the job she loved and did quite expertly, on the next plane. She got out while the getting was good.
So have many others. The New York Times reported Sunday that the American Foreign Service Association reported that more Foreign Service officers are leaving the profession than ever. They feel increasingly disparaged by an administration that cares little for them or their jobs. "There's pride in the dignity of those officers in these undignified times, and in how vividly their plain-spoken courage and professionalism brings to life the wider value of public service," said William J. Burns, who served as an ambassador under four presidents. They are, to be sure, good examples of good examples, hanging tough not because of incidents inside the countries to which they've been assigned, but inside the very country that sponsors them.
They are also distinctly unbiased, loyal to the idea of the United States of America and, like Yovanovitch, not to any particular individual, which I'm quite sure has rankled 45 to no end. I caught a glimpse of that when I attended that afore-mentioned education union meeting in Turkey in 2004. The NEA staffer, Jill Christiansen, set up a meeting and we went to the U.S. embassy in Ankara to discuss some issues. We ran into very professional people who cared not for the particularly opposing political positions between us and the administration (Bush-43) that they were then working for, not the least of which was that we had worked our asses off to bump it out and failed. We were Americans, this is what they knew about a Turkish teachers' union that was under fire, and they were happy to share it.
There was no quid pro quo, no declaration of loyalty to be made. We were under the same flag, seven thousand miles from home. That was enough.
Right this very minute, in fact, the embassy in Ankara is probably a pretty tense place, what with the recent deal cut by 45's gang to allow the Turks to enter Syria and take out our former friends, the Kurds. I wonder what the diplomatic corps assigned there are thinking. I wonder who, if anyone, will be hanging on when this mess back home finally clears.
There, and elsewhere. "There a deep worry about what will become of the Foreign Service when this is all over," said Molly Montgomery, who spent 14 years in the Foreign Services, as quoted in the NYT article, "about who will be left, and whether the norm of an apolitical Foreign Service trusted by the State Department's political leadership can be restored."
That clarification, among many others, will probably be revealed when William Taylor, Jr., George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch will step up to the microphone starting tomorrow. They are the true patriots, those who toil largely unsaluted, literally around the world. Republicans will walk into that hearing room with egg already on their faces from their twisting of reality to defend the indefensible. Those three career diplomats will, by mere statement of facts, bring several dozen more cartons.
They will restate, because it somehow needs to be restated, the vitality of the USA around the world, the crucial nature of our embassies, and the way the Constitution has been abused, violated, and circumvented by a complete jackass and his fellow jackasses. Expect to be even more embarrassed when they're through.
Those people, who make us proud to be Americans, have never earned this abuse. They are, in many ways, the best we have. They don't deserve this abomination, this clear and present trashing. Neither do we.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
So if things go down poorly, it can have enormous consequences. On Dec. 7, 1941, two Japanese envoys (ambassadors assigned to do a specific task), who had been ostensibly sent to the U.S. to do negotiations, gave U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull a list of ultimatums that, if the U.S. was unwilling to fulfill, would mean war between the two countries, the idea being that the presentation was to take place just moments before the Japanese planes hit Pearl Harbor, so technically, the attack wouldn't be called a surprise because our government, several hours away by plane, would still have been considered to have 'received' the message. But a technical glitch had prevented the message from being translated from code, so it was given to Hull about two hours after the attack had begun. That is a big, big no-no in diplomacy, where form and observed practices are paramount: These are lies, was the message actually sent to us. All Hull could do, after roasting his two very sorry, helpless guests, was to dismiss them with a nod to the door.
Consider, then, Marie Yovanovitch, career diplomat, who used to be our ambassador to Ukraine. Hers was a country very much on the international firing line, considering its Russian invasion during Barack Obama's presidency. Her role in the USA's positioning against a Russian takeover would be considered, one would think, absolutely vital. It would be good to have such an experienced person on hand there: classy, dignified, and opposite of her bosses, very appropriate.
Consider how she might have felt when she saw that the government she was working for had changed hands and the direction of foreign policy had gone from Secretary of State John Kerry, former U.S. Senator, to Rex Tillerson, oil magnate, who at least had done some interaction, however personally based, with some oil-rich countries. Consider how she might have felt, too, when Tillerson, savaged by a clown president who has both scared the hell out of and 'fallen in love with' the ruler of North Korea all in the same month, resigned and made way for Mike Pompeo, a Jesus freak who sees foreign policy through the will of a Christian god first and foremost, as has been well-documented.
Consider how she might have felt when, in July 2018, the president extolled the virtues of Russian president Vladimir Putin after meeting behind closed doors with him, the contents of which discussion are still unknown. Could they have had anything to do with Ukraine? Would you have liked to have operated under such a cloud?
Nonetheless, Yovanovitch soldiered on until she began to hear that the shyster's shyster, Rudy Giuliani, was actually doing work for the main shyster behind her back. Then she heard the president say that she had done "some really bad things," without anyone having met with her to explain them, without the Secretary of State even mentioning it to her. She also heard that, if she wanted to stick around, she should sell out and tell the press that the president was a really good guy.
After refusing to do that bit of diplomatic extortion, she heard that if she was smart, she should leave the country and the job she loved and did quite expertly, on the next plane. She got out while the getting was good.
So have many others. The New York Times reported Sunday that the American Foreign Service Association reported that more Foreign Service officers are leaving the profession than ever. They feel increasingly disparaged by an administration that cares little for them or their jobs. "There's pride in the dignity of those officers in these undignified times, and in how vividly their plain-spoken courage and professionalism brings to life the wider value of public service," said William J. Burns, who served as an ambassador under four presidents. They are, to be sure, good examples of good examples, hanging tough not because of incidents inside the countries to which they've been assigned, but inside the very country that sponsors them.
They are also distinctly unbiased, loyal to the idea of the United States of America and, like Yovanovitch, not to any particular individual, which I'm quite sure has rankled 45 to no end. I caught a glimpse of that when I attended that afore-mentioned education union meeting in Turkey in 2004. The NEA staffer, Jill Christiansen, set up a meeting and we went to the U.S. embassy in Ankara to discuss some issues. We ran into very professional people who cared not for the particularly opposing political positions between us and the administration (Bush-43) that they were then working for, not the least of which was that we had worked our asses off to bump it out and failed. We were Americans, this is what they knew about a Turkish teachers' union that was under fire, and they were happy to share it.
There was no quid pro quo, no declaration of loyalty to be made. We were under the same flag, seven thousand miles from home. That was enough.
Right this very minute, in fact, the embassy in Ankara is probably a pretty tense place, what with the recent deal cut by 45's gang to allow the Turks to enter Syria and take out our former friends, the Kurds. I wonder what the diplomatic corps assigned there are thinking. I wonder who, if anyone, will be hanging on when this mess back home finally clears.
There, and elsewhere. "There a deep worry about what will become of the Foreign Service when this is all over," said Molly Montgomery, who spent 14 years in the Foreign Services, as quoted in the NYT article, "about who will be left, and whether the norm of an apolitical Foreign Service trusted by the State Department's political leadership can be restored."
That clarification, among many others, will probably be revealed when William Taylor, Jr., George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch will step up to the microphone starting tomorrow. They are the true patriots, those who toil largely unsaluted, literally around the world. Republicans will walk into that hearing room with egg already on their faces from their twisting of reality to defend the indefensible. Those three career diplomats will, by mere statement of facts, bring several dozen more cartons.
They will restate, because it somehow needs to be restated, the vitality of the USA around the world, the crucial nature of our embassies, and the way the Constitution has been abused, violated, and circumvented by a complete jackass and his fellow jackasses. Expect to be even more embarrassed when they're through.
Those people, who make us proud to be Americans, have never earned this abuse. They are, in many ways, the best we have. They don't deserve this abomination, this clear and present trashing. Neither do we.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment