why won't the us appoint an ambassador

  1. 13,013 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 99
    From Crikey.com

    Why won't the US appoint an ambassador?


    Barry Everingham writes:

    Washington's reluctance in appointing an ambassador to Australia shows how much we're regarded by the Bush administration as a US colony.

    Bush's mate Tom Schieffer was shifted from Canberra to Tokyo in record time and took up his appointment there in January, while the embassy he vacated is run by a state department professional. Schieffer tore up the diplomatic rule book when he was here and Howard and Downer let him get away with it.

    He regularly commented on local politics, which is a diplomatic breach so serious that if a representative of another country followed suit, he or she would have been read the riot act by the Foreign Affairs Department. Obviously Schieffer knew he could get away with it otherwise he would have remained silent. And the fact that Howard and Downer went so far to endorse what the former ambassador said, showed they either didn't know the form or if they were too scared to speak up.

    Close allies do not leave their embassies without an ambassador for any length of time – Britain, Japan, China, Canada and New Zealand are swift to seek Canberra's agreement of their new representative usually before the departing ambassador leaves. Bush traditionally appoints his mates to the diplomatic jobs – could it be he's running out of them or those approached aren't interested in our bush capital?

    Whatever the reason, it's been seven months since the former ambassador departed – and eyebrows in Canberra are certainly raised.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.