[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]
Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, has placed a hold on the confirmation of Frank Ricciardone, the Obama administration’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Turkey. On the face of it, this would simply be another internecine Senate squabble, but from the foreign policy point of view, it has far greater implications.
Ricciardone, a 34-year veteran of the Foreign Service, has extensive experience in the Middle East and is thought of as one of his service’s most distinguished officers. He has served in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Ricciardone is the kind of senior career Foreign Service officer who is often picked by both Democratic and Republican administrations to undertake important and politically sensitive assignments around the world. That is because, generally speaking, such officers are practically and substantively better equipped than many, if not most, of the career political hacks who are rewarded for their support with ambassadorial assignments. Such is certainly the case with Ricciardone.
So, why is Ricciardone’s assignment being blocked? It is purely politics. These “politics” clearly result from a Washington reality which shows the difference between foreign policy based on objective realities as opposed to one built on internal U.S. politics.
It is an unfortunate fact that the more important any given foreign policy matter is to U.S. national interests, the less likely it is that our policy will be based on objective facts and the more likely it will be based on internal U.S. politics. This reality has become more sharply defined in a currently deeply divided, partisan Washington and is a reality that clearly defines our present Middle East policy.
Ricciardone has a wealth of practical, first-hand experience in the Middle East. Any intelligent and successful diplomat with that sort of background simply has to understand the realities of that region far better than any member of the U.S. Senate, irrespective of his senatorial assignments.
The issue for Brownback is said to be his assessment that Ricciardone has a history of getting too close to the governments of the Islamic countries to which he has been assigned and that he has not adequately advocated U.S. values such as democracy and human rights with those governments.
It is the purpose of any foreign policy and thus, any ambassador, to advance the national interests of the United States. Thus, the real interest here is precisely what our national interests are in Turkey and whether or not our policies support them.
Brownback’s position is said to be widely supported throughout the Republican senatorial caucus.
A senior Republican aide has been quoted as having said, “He’s just the wrong guy for this sensitive post at this time and the hope is that the administration will recognize that he won’t be confirmed this year and nominate someone better.”
The Republican view is that Ricciardone will get too close to the Turkish government and sell out our “real” interests of pushing for democracy and human rights above all else.
A very strong argument can be made that the Republican concerns about Ricciardone, as expressed above, are essentially meaningless when compared to America’s real national interests in the Middle East and Turkey.
Turkey has slowly drifted away from its former support of our foreign policy goals in the Middle East. Turkey has ruptured its previously close and friendly relationship with Israel. It is talking about its own need for nuclear weapons to counter Israeli nukes. In addition, with Brazil, it has engaged Iran on nuclear enrichment and no longer supports U.S. hopes for further U.N. sanctions on Iran.
Since the Israeli airborne assault on the Turkish ship “Mavi Marmara,” which was attempting to bring relief supplies to Gaza, Turkey has become an exceedingly important and delicate issue of the kind that cries out for calm and experienced diplomacy of the kind Ricciardone clearly could provide.
The Republicans say they will not budge on the ambassador’s nomination, leaving us with the inescapable conclusion that the Obama administration’s choice of the foreign policy professional who they believe can best forward our goals in an extraordinarily difficult environment, will not be permitted by the Republican Senate caucus to go there.
Given the increasingly obvious disaster of the recently concluded Bush foreign policy years, Obama deserves the opportunity to implement his own ideas. That should argue in favor of confirmation which should not be left to the questionable value of the Republican preoccupation with exporting democracy.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in East and West Europe, the Middle East and as chief of the Counterterrorism Staff.
