Which is more important for incoming ambassadors: To be well connected to their head of state or to have a good knowledge of the country where they are being posted?
How can one have a good knowledge of a country, when that would require all the time it took to achieve the post of ambassador? And not only that, if the connection to head of state, what-not, is not good, you could wonder who the ambassador is talking for.
Goog question but difficult to choose one from two options. I voted (To be well connected to their head of state) though I believe both is very important.
I may be wrong but most countries select career diplomats to be their ambassadors. Often, they have already had a term or two in the country before they are appointed ambassador. Some of them speak the language quite well. In the case of the U.S., it seems to be common for a new president to reward his cronies and fund donors with plum ambassadorial postings.
In that sense, the nomination of California lawyer John Roos as the next U.S. ambassador to Japan is probably normal for the U.S. He is well connected to Obama, despite knowing very little about Japan. However, I think the U.S. consul general in Okinawa, Kevin Maher, would have been a better choice. He has been in Japan for many years, speaks Japanese and is familiar with all the pertinent issues between Japan and the U.S.
In the case of U.S. embassies, the charge d'affaires is the top diplomatic officer and has the deep knowledge of the local scene. Having an ambassador with good connections to the White House is very important.
yes but knowledge through a posting in a country is not 'good' knowledge of the country-its usually filtered through the embassy doors. It would be better to have no knowledge than a little. That is, Maher in Okinawa has about as much knowledge as your Californian guy
These appointments are usually political favors. The appointee usually doesn't know anything about the country....and after the ambassadorship is over they still dont know anything.
Is that so? Well my understanding of an ambassador is anybody who represents their country. I guess it doesnt only have to be country. I think we should do away with ambassador as a position of parliament/government. They are also boggled in 'red tape', it is not their fault, but it is degenerative, in the minus. Bye-bye!
No offense intended to the author of this question, but I don't think it's worded very well.
When asked, "which is more important for incoming ambassadors...," does that mean, which is more important for getting the selection or which is more important for doing the job?
I feel that for getting the job, you have to have the connections. I'm sure there are a butt-ton of people who have more useful knowledge of Japan than our current ambassador, none of them got the job however, nor are they well connected with Pres. Obama, in all likelihood. Coincidence? I don't think so.
On the other hand, being friends with the president doesn't qualify you for any job, unless that job is professional presidential sidekick.
› Login to comment
13 Comments
illsayit at 09:35 PM JST - 26th July
How can one have a good knowledge of a country, when that would require all the time it took to achieve the post of ambassador? And not only that, if the connection to head of state, what-not, is not good, you could wonder who the ambassador is talking for.
Triumvere at 11:08 PM JST - 26th July
Good question. I'm not sure how to answer. Ideally, you'd want both, wouldn't you?
TokyoHustla at 03:58 AM JST - 27th July
They need to be well connected, first and foremost.
farhaan at 05:02 AM JST - 27th July
Goog question but difficult to choose one from two options. I voted (To be well connected to their head of state) though I believe both is very important.
smartacus at 06:47 AM JST - 27th July
I may be wrong but most countries select career diplomats to be their ambassadors. Often, they have already had a term or two in the country before they are appointed ambassador. Some of them speak the language quite well. In the case of the U.S., it seems to be common for a new president to reward his cronies and fund donors with plum ambassadorial postings.
In that sense, the nomination of California lawyer John Roos as the next U.S. ambassador to Japan is probably normal for the U.S. He is well connected to Obama, despite knowing very little about Japan. However, I think the U.S. consul general in Okinawa, Kevin Maher, would have been a better choice. He has been in Japan for many years, speaks Japanese and is familiar with all the pertinent issues between Japan and the U.S.
Suzu1 at 11:57 AM JST - 27th July
In the case of U.S. embassies, the charge d'affaires is the top diplomatic officer and has the deep knowledge of the local scene. Having an ambassador with good connections to the White House is very important.
JenniferKim at 01:51 PM JST - 27th July
Why wouldn't an ambassador be able to do both? This isn't an "either-or, but not both" situation.
stirfry at 04:51 PM JST - 27th July
well if you're not well-connected you have no shot at getting an ambassadorship in the first place
illsayit at 11:34 PM JST - 27th July
yes but knowledge through a posting in a country is not 'good' knowledge of the country-its usually filtered through the embassy doors. It would be better to have no knowledge than a little. That is, Maher in Okinawa has about as much knowledge as your Californian guy
CultureChange at 04:13 AM JST - 28th July
These appointments are usually political favors. The appointee usually doesn't know anything about the country....and after the ambassadorship is over they still dont know anything.
illsayit at 09:05 AM JST - 29th July
Is that so? Well my understanding of an ambassador is anybody who represents their country. I guess it doesnt only have to be country. I think we should do away with ambassador as a position of parliament/government. They are also boggled in 'red tape', it is not their fault, but it is degenerative, in the minus. Bye-bye!
Taka313 at 10:57 AM JST - 30th July
No offense intended to the author of this question, but I don't think it's worded very well.
When asked, "which is more important for incoming ambassadors...," does that mean, which is more important for getting the selection or which is more important for doing the job?
I feel that for getting the job, you have to have the connections. I'm sure there are a butt-ton of people who have more useful knowledge of Japan than our current ambassador, none of them got the job however, nor are they well connected with Pres. Obama, in all likelihood. Coincidence? I don't think so.
On the other hand, being friends with the president doesn't qualify you for any job, unless that job is professional presidential sidekick.
Taka
rajakumar at 07:00 PM JST - 30th July
Most important for incoming ambassadors,to do good for his nation in japan and to do the most to help japanese understand his nation and people.