Ambassadorial Leaks

[Rob C]

Boris Johnson, the new prime minister, wouldn't want an anti-American ambassador.

He's not there yet.

Who says the amb. was anti-American? Are you anti-American if you dislike Trump or observe him for what he appears to be to everyone, apart from a level of Republicans with poor vision? It's as silly as condemning all the Republican party and its policies because of him.

I quite liked Tony Blair at the time but would never have voted for his party; I admired Maggie T. for her strength and sense of reality in seeing that the past was the past and that no country could afford to keep pumping money into obsolete systems. As with the world of photography, some win with new brooms and others are wiped out. That's one Trump has ignored, and it will be not to his personal cost - he's too rich to feel anything - but to that of the efficient parts of the US system he will kill to favour his base voter.

The problem the world now faces with Trump's precedent is that the rôle of ambassador becomes rather obsolete too, leaving the quiet, back-door world of diplomacy that once smoothed out glitches and saved countries from taking public stances from which neither could retreat without losing face, gone, and the era of the bully and the avenging angel remains as the only viable scenario. Not yet, but that's where the Trump initiative is leading us.

And as the recent NK/China/US meets abroad have shown, presidential face-to-face achieves nothing but sound bites. Nothing material has come from any of them. A distanced by degree civil service has powers that politicians cannot have because the power blocks understand (possibly Trump does not) that one election can change everything - and everyone - you deal with to build up trust. As has Iran understood. Why would it now trust any American negotiator?

You see the difficulties when non-professionals take to the stage? Diplomatic ways of doing international political business exist because they usually work better than going to blows.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Who says the amb. was anti-American? Are you anti-American if you dislike Trump...

Disliking is ok. But being anti-Trump = anti-American.

[Robert Roaldi]

Disliking is ok. But being anti-Trump = anti-American.

L'État, c'est moi ! 

[Alan Klein]

...
The problem the world now faces with Trump's precedent is that the rôle of ambassador becomes rather obsolete too, leaving the quiet, back-door world of diplomacy that once smoothed out glitches and saved countries from taking public stances from which neither could retreat without losing face, gone, and the era of the bully and the avenging angel remains as the only viable scenario. Not yet, but that's where the Trump initiative is leading us.

And as the recent NK/China/US meets abroad have shown, presidential face-to-face achieves nothing but sound bites. Nothing material has come from any of them. A distanced by degree civil service has powers that politicians cannot have because the power blocks understand (possibly Trump does not) that one election can change everything - and everyone - you deal with to build up trust. As has Iran understood. Why would it now trust any American negotiator?

You see the difficulties when non-professionals take to the stage? Diplomatic ways of doing international political business exist because they usually work better than going to blows.

Past presidents often accomplished nothing using traditional negotiations.  Even when they made deals, the opposite side broke them, like nuclear agreements with North Korea or NATO defense payment promises.  Trump can make a stink of things to force situations.  At least he tries a new way.  His personal meetings with Kim has gotten them to stop setting off nuke explosion, released American prisoners they were holding, and stopped intercontinental missile testing.  That's not bad.

As far as Iran, there was no treaty.  The Senate never approved the agreement as required by our constitution.    And Obama knew he wouldn't get Senate approval so he never submitted it to them for approval. Iran knew that.  But Iran rolled the dice anyway and it came up craps.  If they negotiate with Trump or any president, they'll knew next time to insist upon Senate approval so it's a formal treaty.  Then subsequent president can't cancel them without Senate approval. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

L'État, c'est moi !

+1

BTW, which culminated, eventually, in the French Revolution.

Cheers,
Bart

[Peter McLennan]

Apparently, the ambassador watched CNN and MSNBC only.

Rather, the guy was in a position to make his own judgments resulting from his own in-person experience.  He was certainly closer to the action than most of the media.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rather, the guy was in a position to make his own judgments resulting from his own in-person experience.  He was certainly closer to the action than most of the media.

And what “action” that might be? Handling a cocktail glass with with a food plate at the same time? Reading local newspapers and reporting on it is a daily action, on the other hand.

[Robert Roaldi]

And what “action” that might be? Handling a cocktail glass with with a food plate at the same time? Reading local newspapers and reporting on it is a daily action, on the other hand.

There may be more to it than that https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-secret-world-of-diplomatic-cables/, a short column on ambassadorial machinations and where they get their info.

[kers]

Past presidents often accomplished nothing using traditional negotiations.  Even when they made deals, the opposite side broke them, like nuclear agreements with North Korea or NATO defense payment promises.  Trump can make a stink of things to force situations.  At least he tries a new way.  His personal meetings with Kim has gotten them to stop setting off nuke explosion, released American prisoners they were holding, and stopped intercontinental missile testing.  That's not bad.

As far as Iran, there was no treaty.  The Senate never approved the agreement as required by our constitution.    And Obama knew he wouldn't get Senate approval so he never submitted it to them for approval. Iran knew that.  But Iran rolled the dice anyway and it came up craps.  If they negotiate with Trump or any president, they'll knew next time to insist upon Senate approval so it's a formal treaty.  Then subsequent president can't cancel them without Senate approval.

From Kim Trump has got 'warm letters', nothing more.
Iran could do the same to please Trump, but they won't of course...

Iran just breached the nuclear limit because of Trump breaking the deal one year earlier. A deal that many countries including the US had worked on for years and that was working well.
Iran was kept under surveillance all the time and they never breached the deal.
But now, one year later, they cannot ignore the sanctions they got to handle, sanctions that are making their economy far worse.
Europe does not dare to keep their (trade) promises to Iran because they know trading with the US is more important.
History shows that Iran 'never' ( centuries) started a war... On the contrary ; they were under attack by Saddams Irak that carried western weapons.
This could happen again.
The USA under Trump has made the Middle East a more dangerous place, by trading enormous amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia ( for what purpose?) and by choosing openly the Israelian site in the conflict with the Palestines. His name will be given to one of the many illegal settlements in occupied territory to show Nethanyahu's gratitude.

[bwana]

wow, I read through all three pages hoping to find a pic of an ambassador taking a leak on a photo...but was disappointed.

[RSL]

From Kim Trump has got 'warm letters', nothing more.
Iran could do the same to please Trump, but they won't of course...

Iran just breached the nuclear limit because of Trump breaking the deal one year earlier. A deal that many countries including the US had worked on for years and that was working well.
Iran was kept under surveillance all the time and they never breached the deal.
But now, one year later, they cannot ignore the sanctions they got to handle, sanctions that are making their economy far worse.
Europe does not dare to keep their (trade) promises to Iran because they know trading with the US is more important.
History shows that Iran 'never' ( centuries) started a war... On the contrary ; they were under attack by Saddams Irak that carried western weapons.
This could happen again.
The USA under Trump has made the Middle East a more dangerous place, by trading enormous amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia ( for what purpose?) and by choosing openly the Israelian site in the conflict with the Palestines. His name will be given to one of the many illegal settlements in occupied territory to show Nethanyahu's gratitude.

Pieter, I was going to do a detailed response to this, but it’s too silly to bother taking the time to do that. Just a few points:

1.   Who says the nuclear deal was “working well?” Essentially, Europeans who want to continue making a buck by dealing with Iran.
2.   Iran was kept under “surveillance” except surveillance wasn’t allowed at their nuclear facilities working on nuclear weapons.
3.   Trading with the U.S. is more important than trading with Iran. You’d better believe it, buddy. Never forget that.
4.   Iran “never” started a war. That was under earlier “administrations;” not under the Ayatollahs.
5.   With Trump in office the Middle East is just as dangerous as it always has been. No more. No less.

What scares the hell out of me is the idea of Iran actually coming close to a nuclear weapon that could be lifted by one of their missiles. At that point Israel faces an existential threat, and they’re going to have to stop it cold. Israel has nukes. If they’re faced with that kind of threat they may have to use one to survive. Then the fat’s in the fire.

[faberryman]

What scares the hell out of me is the idea of Iran actually coming close to a nuclear weapon that could be lifted by one of their missiles. At that point Israel faces an existential threat, and they’re going to have to stop it cold. Israel has nukes. If they’re faced with that kind of threat they may have to use one to survive. Then the fat’s in the fire.

MAD?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Pieter, I was going to do a detailed response to this, but it’s too silly to bother taking the time to do that. Just a few points:

1.   Who says the nuclear deal was “working well?” Essentially, Europeans who want to continue making a buck by dealing with Iran.
2.   Iran was kept under “surveillance” except surveillance wasn’t allowed at their nuclear facilities working on nuclear weapons.
3.   Trading with the U.S. is more important than trading with Iran. You’d better believe it, buddy. Never forget that.
4.   Iran “never” started a war. That was under earlier “administrations;” not under the Ayatollahs.
5.   With Trump in office the Middle East is just as dangerous as it always has been. No more. No less.

What scares the hell out of me is the idea of Iran actually coming close to a nuclear weapon that could be lifted by one of their missiles. At that point Israel faces an existential threat, and they’re going to have to stop it cold. Israel has nukes. If they’re faced with that kind of threat they may have to use one to survive. Then the fat’s in the fire.

Russ, the IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran) reporting confirmed that Iran stuck to the agreement, until the deal was unilaterally ripped-up by the USA. Inspections were not frustrated, and the findings were in line with what was agreed upon.

Now that there is no official agreement anymore, and there have been additional Trading sanctions imposed on anybody who wants to still honor the agreement, why would Iran be the only one to still stick to the (now non-existing limitations)?

Tantrum baby Trump is behaving like a schoolyard bully, only for re-election purposes. Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive.  Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive.  Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).

Says an armchair “expert” from across the ocean.

[Rob C]

Says an armchair “expert” from across the ocean.

In this now tiny world, an expert in NY can perhaps know less about domestic affairs than his counterpart in Delhi.

If you doubt that, spare a second to the current "ambassador" mess: leaks can be sent anywhere, not only to newspapers. It all depends on the mischief that has been planned, or even on the state of mind of some altruistic nerd who has no idea what his actions might ignite.

The global village really is, and with every village its idiot.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Russ, the IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran) reporting confirmed that Iran stuck to the agreement, until the deal was unilaterally ripped-up by the USA. Inspections were not frustrated, and the findings were in line with what was agreed upon.

Now that there is no official agreement anymore, and there have been additional Trading sanctions imposed on anybody who wants to still honor the agreement, why would Iran be the only one to still stick to the (now non-existing limitations)?

Tantrum baby Trump is behaving like a schoolyard bully, only for re-election purposes. Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive.  Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).

Cheers,
Bart

Many Americans opposed the original Iran deal.  They voted for Trump who won to get rid of it which he did.  He keeps his promises.  Refreshing for a politician. The end date when Iran can start making nukes ends in a few years.  What's the point of having such a limiting "deal".  That's why Obama couldn't get the Senate to agree to make it an official treaty as required by law.  Meanwhile, the relief of having the sanctions lifted helped them create more havoc there.    Iran is on America's terrorist nation list. It has proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere making war on others trying to extend Iran's influence in the Middle East.  Unfortunately, they'll wait to see if Trump loses the presidency in 2020 as many Democrat candidates are promising to go back to the agreement.  If they do, Iran will get the bomb.  Reminder that you guys in Europe really depend on the ME for fuel. Do you want to be beholden to Iran?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In this now tiny world, an expert in NY can perhaps know less about domestic affairs than his counterpart in Delhi...

Which limits outside experts to getting their info from faraway sources. Missing is the deeper understanding of the context and environment that locals have. You can't form your opinion of, say, Trump, by just reading the mostly hostile media. Without being here, talking to people, seeing thing with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power. Saying we are "naive and used" is just plain condescending.

[faberryman]

Which limits outside experts to getting their info from faraway sources. Missing is the deeper understanding of the context and environment that locals have. You can't form your opinion of, say, Trump, by just reading the mostly hostile media. Without being here, talking to people, seeing thing with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power.

Like the ambassador.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Without being here, talking to people, seeing things with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power.

But that is a completely different thing. It is well understood why he was elected.

Apparently, elementary observation and critical thinking take a second place compared to beliefs and sentiments.
Not an uncommon phenomenon, AKA cognitive dissonance.

I won't go as far as labeling it a Stockholm syndrome. After all, I'm merely an armchair expert, and not a psychiatrist.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chris Kern]

I'm not familiar with the reporting methodology of the British embassy here, but I presume it is similar to the process used in U.S. diplomatic missions around the world.

The interpretation of events in the host country is typically a collaborative effort.  The U.S. State Department posts foreign service staff members known as "political officers" to other countries; one of their principal responsibilities is to collect information and draft "telegrams" (we still rather quaintly call them that, or did at the time I left the government) which are transmitted in the ambassador's name, and which report and interpret political events and government policies in the host country.  Other members of the diplomatic mission, such as economic and consular officers, members of trade delegations, etc., also provide information where appropriate, and "public diplomacy officers" may offer advice about how to communicate effectively with non-governmental constituencies.

Career ambassadors (many of whom started out as political officers) probably contribute significantly to this reporting—political ambassadors (those appointed for their financial contributions or other support to the president or party currently occupying the White House) rather less so, I suspect.  The extent of the ambassador's direct involvement in this reporting effort is up to the ambassador, of course.  When the host government plans a change in policy that affects the United States, or when the United States plans a change in policy that affects the host government, it's the ambassador who is summoned or delivers the message, respectively.  This includes situations where one of the governments wants to convey its dissatisfaction with the other; the ambassador's direct involvement makes the point about the importance attached to the démarche.

David Sanger had an interesting piece in the New York Times the other day based on sources in several embassies in Washington that describes how the process works—and how it has changed—in the Trump Administration.  (I think the link I've provided will function outside North America.)