Career Diplomats and Political Appointees: The United States and Taiwan in Comparative Perspective
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo poses for a photo after inducting a new class of Foreign Service Officers in 2018. State Department photo.
This article examines and compares diplomatic appointment processes in the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan) and suggests various reforms that could mitigate the problem of unqualified political appointments.
While professional diplomats have a robust presence in both the United States and Taiwan, there is increasingly a trend for heads of state in both governments to nominate political supporters to ambassadorial and diplomatic posts. According to commentators and by objective measures, political nominees are often less qualified than professional diplomatic service personnel, which raises controversies surrounding competence and fairness for career diplomats. While it is true that some political appointees contribute a wealth of professional experience, most have little or no prior diplomatic experience.
The Distinction
In general terms, the primary responsibilities of a diplomat involve representing and protecting the interests and citizens of their home state abroad: initiating and facilitating strategic agreements, negotiating treaties and conventions, exchanging information, fostering trade and commerce, and pursuing friendly international relations.
The distinction between career diplomats and political appointees is important. Although any person may be appointed by a government to conduct its relations with other states or international organizations, many states, including the United States and Taiwan, maintain an institutionalized group of career diplomats, who are selected competitively and maintain a steady professional connection to the country’s foreign affairs ministry. Both career diplomats and political appointees serve the same functions and enjoy the same diplomatic immunities under international law, but there are some differences between the two.
Ambassadors of the United States
The Appointments Clause, under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, empowers the President of the United States to appoint public officials (with confirmation by the Senate), including ambassadors and other principal diplomatic officers.
... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
In the United States, ambassadors are nominated by the president to serve as diplomats to individual nations, to international organizations, or as ambassadors-at-large. Their appointment needs to be confirmed by the United States Senate. Ambassadors serve “at the pleasure of the president,” meaning they can be dismissed at any time.
An ambassador may be a Foreign Service Officer—a career diplomat—or a political appointee. In most cases, when career Foreign Service Officers serve as ambassadors, they usually serve for approximately three years per ambassadorship, whereas political appointees customarily tender their resignations upon the inauguration of a new president. As embassies fall under the State Department’s jurisdiction, ambassadors answer directly to the Secretary of State.
United States Foreign Service
Created in 1924 by the Rogers Act, the United States Foreign Service is the primary personnel system used by the diplomatic service of the United States federal government, under the aegis of the U.S. Department of State. It consists of over 13,000 professionals carrying out the foreign policy of the United States and aiding U.S. citizens abroad, and combines all consular and diplomatic services of the U.S. government into one administrative unit. The Rogers Act also defined a personnel system under which the United States Secretary of State is authorized to assign diplomats abroad.
In terms of selection, members of the Foreign Service are selected through a series of written and oral examinations. They serve at any of the 270 United States diplomatic missions around the world, including embassies, consulates, and other facilities. As of 2017, the total number of Foreign Service employees is 13,873, including about 8,000 Foreign Service Officers (“generalists”) and 5,800 Foreign Service Specialists.
Civil Service Reform and Professionalization
By the late 19th century, the United States government operated on a spoils system, a patronage practice in which officeholders awarded their political allies with government jobs in return for financial and political support. Meaningful civil service reform came about with the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, which mandates that most positions within the federal government should be awarded on the basis of merit. The Pendleton Act provided for the selection of some government employees by competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. The law also made it illegal to fire or demote these government officials for political reasons and created the Civil Service Commission to enforce the merit system.
American diplomatic personnel system moved towards professionalization in the 20th century. Under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905, federal law began to challenge the tradition of amateurism by fostering the development of a permanent corps of career diplomats. The law also encouraged the appointment of those career appointments by requiring the Secretary of State and other advisers to identify and recommend to the president exemplary officers from the Foreign Service. Third, the law has promoted professionalization by requiring the State Department to disclose to the Senate each nominee’s qualifications for an ambassadorship.
Finally, since 1960, federal law has formally encouraged professionalization by signaling to the president a preference for career ambassadors.The Foreign Relations Authorization Act declared that it was the sense of Congress that ambassadorships “should be accorded to men and women possessing clearly demonstrated competence to perform ambassadorial duties,” that no one should be accorded such a position “primarily because of financial contributions to political campaigns,” and that “a greater number of positions of ambassador should be occupied by career personnel in the Foreign Service.” The Foreign Service Act of 1980 reiterated these positions. Modern presidents now fill a supermajority of U.S. ambassadorships with Foreign Service Officers.
Hatch Act: Regulation of Diplomats’ Political Activities
Federal officers and employees, including members of the Foreign Service, historically have been subject to certain limitations when engaging in partisan political activities. The Hatch Act of 1939, officially an Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice president, and certain designated high-level officials, from engaging in some forms of political activity. However, the Hatch Act was significantly amended in 1993 to relax the broad ban on political activities and now allows employees to engage in a wide range of voluntary partisan political activities in their free time, while away from the federal workspace.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (M.S.P.B.) and the Office of Special Counsel (O.S.C.) are responsible for the enforcement of the Hatch Act. For example, in October 2017, the O.S.C. issued a warning to United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley for a June 2017 retweet of President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Republican congressional candidate Ralph Norman.
Developments under the Trump Administration
Ambassadorships are often used as a form of political patronage to reward important supporters of the president. The administration of President Donald Trump has been criticized for appointing a disproportionately high number of political appointees as ambassadors, who tend to be rich donors, may be diplomatically under-qualified, and who squeeze out career diplomats from senior jobs.
It is reported that about 45 percent of President Trump’s ambassadors are political appointees, compared to 30 percent under President Barack Obama, about 32 percent under President George W. Bush, and about 28 percent under President Bill Clinton. At least eight of President Trump’s first fifteen appointments to bilateral ambassadorships were financial donors, including New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, who personally contributed over $450,000 to the Trump campaign and is now ambassador to the United Kingdom. In recent years, career diplomats have expressed concerns about the influx of political appointees at the State Department.
In October 2019, U.S. Representative Ami Bera, a Democrat from California who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a bill that would require 70 percent of ambassadors to come from career foreign service and civil service ranks. “Strengthening Traditional American Diplomacy Act” is the name of the pending legislation.
According to Bera, while it is true that some political appointees contribute a wealth of professional experience, many individuals have little to no prior diplomatic experience. During a time of increasingly complex global challenges and national security threats, the United States must have our most qualified and experienced public servants representing the country around the world.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Taipei.
Taiwan’s Diplomatic Personnel
The recruitment of civil servants through selective examinations has been a long-standing system in Chinese history. After the foundation of the Republic of China, the Examination Council was established in 1929 to oversee those exams. Following the promulgation of the Constitution, the Ministry of Examination was formally established in 1948; today it is the fundamental agency responsible for the administration of national civil service examinations throughout Taiwan.
Like that of other civil servants, selection of career diplomatic personnel is conducted by competitive examination. Generally speaking, after three years of domestic service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, diplomatic staff may be transferred to serve in diplomatic missions abroad for about six years. According to regulations including the “Act Governing Employment of Diplomatic and Consular Personnel Stationed Overseas,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must handle the promotion and assessment of all personnel in a fair, just, and objective manner. The pay and benefits of diplomatic personnel is handled according to the same provisions which govern military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers.
Last amended in January 2018, the “Act Governing Employment of Diplomatic and Consular Personnel Stationed Overseas” governs diplomatic and consular personnel stationed overseas. Additionally, the “Civil Service Employment Act,” last amended in April 2019, applies more generally to all government employees and governs the remaining matters not provided in the law specific to diplomatic personnel.
Administrative Neutrality in Taiwan
The R.O.C. Constitution protects voting rights (Article 17), freedom of assembly and association (Article 14), freedom of expression (Article 11), and privacy of correspondence (Article 12). As such, the Constitution protects the right to political participation and discussion, including voting in elections, joining political parties and groups, making political contributions, attending campaign activities, participating in social movements and civic protests, and even running for office.
However, civil servants, including diplomatic personnel, are government employees and must abide by the “Civil Service Administrative Neutrality Act,” which is aimed at preventing political interference in government administration. The law was first drafted around 1994, enacted in 2009, and last amended in 2014. Generally, civil servants may not express support for political candidates by public endorsement at political rallies, solicitation of votes, or utilization of administrative resources. Gray areas include attending political rallies and making statements on the Internet, although civil servants are advised to do so in a low-key and calm manner so as to avoid unnecessary controversy.
Typically, civil servants are disciplined by the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission, Judicial Yuan, under the “Civil Service Discipline Act” and “Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act.” Grievances may be addressed to the Control Yuan.
Developments under the Tsai Administration
Under the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan has passed amendments to relax previous restrictions and enable the President to assign political appointees to diplomatic posts. In December 2017, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to the Act Governing Employment of Diplomatic and Consular Personnel Stationed Overseas, raising the maximum number of senior diplomats that the President can directly appoint from 10 to 15 percent of the total number of diplomats stationed overseas. The amendment also raises the number of senior diplomats that the president can directly appoint from nine to 14, with the exception of ambassadors and permanent representatives.
In May 2018, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to the “Organization Act of Diplomatic Missions” that allows the government to appoint a quota of 10 resident ministers and deputy representatives to Taiwan’s foreign representative offices, a move that has been criticized as an effort to engage in pork-barrel politics.
In January 2019, there was widespread controversy and political discussion in Taiwan surrounding the appointment of 30-year-old rookie Vincent Chao as head of the political division at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, amid accusations of nepotism. The position is typically assigned to a senior career diplomat with ten (10) to twenty (20) years of experience. Many have questioned whether Chao, a former aide to Foreign Minister Joseph Wu and an interpreter for President Tsai Ing-wen’s campaign, has the experience required for the post, which reportedly has a basic monthly salary of about $7,900 (quite high for Taiwanese standards), given that Chao had never taken an examination for diplomatic personnel.
In September 2019, Su Chii-cherng, who was serving as director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Osaka, Japan, unexpectedly died from an apparent suicide. The Osaka office, which had been under considerable pressure since its emergency aid operations at Kansai International Airport amid Super Typhoon Jebi, had been criticized because its aid efforts allegedly paled in comparison with the efforts of the mainland Chinese consulate in Osaka. Later in December 2019, Su’s widow denied that false information on the Internet drove her husband to take his own life, stating that it was driven instead “anticipated humiliation” by his superiors. Some have claimed that Frank Hsieh, Taiwan’s representative to Japan, is at least partly responsible for the suicide. A cyber-warrior who had previously aided online presidential campaign efforts for Hsieh had spread false allegations about Su, potentially to protect Hsieh’s reputation over politically mishandling the aftermath of the typhoon and passing the blame to Su.
Ambassador Hsieh had also come to the political spotlight previously blasting the opposition party on Facebook for erecting a comfort women statue in Tainan and initiating a referendum to maintain an import ban on food products from Fukushima nuclear disaster areas, which he claims aggravates confrontation between Taiwan and Japan. His controversial comments targeting the opposition party were criticized for violating guidelines of administrative neutrality which govern diplomats. Hsieh, a heavyweight figure in the ruling party, former premier, and a major presidential candidate in 2008, was appointed by President Tsai to serve as representative to Japan in June 2016.
In Comparative Perspective
The United States has had a longer constitutional tradition than the Republic of China, but both countries use a civil service examination system to recruit a vast majority of their diplomatic personnel. While robust foreign service networks of career diplomats are in place in both the United States and Taiwan, there is an increasing trend for the chief executives to nominate political supporters to ambassadorial and diplomatic posts. Similarly, according to commentators and by objective measures in both countries, political nominees are often less qualified than professional foreign service personnel, which raises controversies surrounding competence and fairness.
Diplomatic Appointments: In both the United States and Taiwan, high-level diplomats serve at the pleasure of the president, meaning that ambassadors and other high-level diplomats may generally be dismissed by the government at any time. Constitutionally, there is generally a more rigorous confirmation process of ambassadors in the United States, as ambassadors nominated by the president need to be confirmed by the Senate. In Taiwan, however, since the constitutional reforms of the 1990s, ambassadors and representatives, like the premier and foreign minister, need not be confirmed by the Legislative Yuan, In both countries, diplomatic personnel, including the U.S. Secretary of State and R.O.C. Foreign Minister, are generally responsible to the legislative branch (i.e. the Congress and Legislative Yuan) about the performance of their missions abroad.
Types of Political Appointees: For the United States and Taiwan, the types of political supporters appointed to diplomatic posts are somewhat different. The Trump administration in the United States has rewarded financial donors and other campaign supporters, while the Tsai administration in Taiwan has benefited political heavyweights from the ruling party and individuals with family ties and political connections. The problem may be more serious in Taiwan, where amended laws in 2017 and 2018 have relaxed statutory restrictions on political appointments of diplomatic officers; for example, it is alarming that some appointees need not be confirmed by the Legislative Yuan.
Regulation of Political Activities: While diplomatic personnel and government employees are entitled to free expression protections, both the United States and Taiwan place restrictions on partisan political activities. In a number of instances, political appointees have been warned or criticized for making partisan statements. In both countries, the civil service system values the notion of neutrality and being removed from politics. On one hand, regulation of political activities limits civil servants, barring participation in partisan activities, intervention in political struggles, and undue influence. On the other hand, administrative neutrality protects civil servants, ensuring that their roles and status as government employees are free and protected from political interference. Impartiality shelters civil servants, including diplomats, from transfers of political power and promotes administrative stability.
Policy Implications
A meaningful issue of political debate in both the United States and Taiwan centers around whether it is justifiable for the president or ruling party to appoint political affiliates and supporters to positions in government, including diplomatic roles. While it is true that some political appointees bring substantial professional experience, many have insufficient diplomatic experience and can generate political controversy.
Political appointments also present the problem of sidelining career employees. Excessive or disproportionate political appointments undermine the system that governs civil servants and hurts the morale of career diplomats, as political appointees more likely lack the necessary competence and experience demanded by higher-ranking posts.
Potential Reforms
Existing problems may be mitigated by reforms specifying statutory qualification requirements and limiting the amount of political appointees. Legislation enforcing certain competency metrics may help democratic governments to assess the qualifications of ambassadors in diplomats. Here are those qualifications:
First, a modern ambassador is essentially a chief executive officer of a diplomatic mission who has full responsibility for directing, coordinating, and supervising all executive branch employees in a foreign country.
Second, ambassadors and diplomats are representatives of their governments in foreign affairs, charged with maintaining close relations, advocating for policies and positions, dissuading foreign governments from courses of action that are contrary to the diplomats’ national interests, negotiating international agreements, and attending official ceremonies. They must be knowledgeable in government and politics, international relations, international law, economics, and global communications so as to competently advise, protect, and assist citizens abroad.
Finally, the ambassadors and diplomats should be culturally proficient to facilitate meaningful negotiations and exchanges. They should have experience involving the receiving state and its region; for example, they should be comfortable with the receiving state’s language. Enacting a requirement that every non-career nominee complete some basic training and an examination to test their language abilities relevant to the prospective diplomatic assignment may improve the overall competency of political appointees and afford them some opportunity to prove their qualifications.
In America, where the problem of rewarding wealthy donors appears to be more serious, members of Congress should make more efforts to regulate appointments so as to prevent the awarding of certain ambassadorships in exchange for campaign contributions or political contributions from aspiring nominees. Reforms should aim to heighten public scrutiny and discourage non-meritocratic appointments by amending existing laws to generate greater transparency with regard to credentials, campaign contributions, and performance in office.
The United States Constitution gives much of the foreign policy decision-making to the presidency, but the power of the chief executive is not absolute. Ryan Scoville, an associate professor of law at Marquette University, cites the argument that the power of Congress to specify qualifications for a particular office is generally understood to be incident to its constitutional authority to establish the office. Therefore, despite the current conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court likely to uphold separation of powers, a carefully calibrated statutory prescription, which advises and checks the president’s discretion to nominate, can be constitutional.
This article examined the cases of non-professional diplomatic appointments in the United States and Taiwan and suggests that plausible reforms include regulating the qualifications of diplomats, clarifying the scope of the presidential discretion to nominate, and enhancing transparency; these would help reduce current tensions between career diplomats and political appointees, and they would facilitate a corrective movement away from unqualified ambassadors and diplomats.
Alfred E. Tsai (CC ’17) is J.D. candidate at the University of Wisconsin Law School and editor of the Taiwan Weekly e-mail newsletter. At Columbia, he studied economics and political science.