William Brangham:
In an unusual move, the Trump administration is recalling the ambassadors from nearly 30 countries around the world. According to the Associated Press, nations in Africa are losing the most diplomats, followed by Asia, then Europe, the Middle East, and here in the Western Hemisphere.
The State Department told the “News Hour” in a statement that — quote — “This is a standard process in any administration. An ambassador is a personal representative of the president, and it is the president’s right to ensure that he has individuals in these countries who advance the America first agenda.”
So, for one perspective on this move, we turn to John Dinkelman. He is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. He had a nearly four-decade diplomatic career with the U.S. State Department.
John, thank you so much for being here.
John Dinkelman, President, American Foreign Service Association:
Thank you for having me.
William Brangham:
How unusual is this to recall nearly 30 ambassadors one year into an administration? Is this standard practice?
John Dinkelman:
This is not standard practice. This is unprecedented. This is unheard of.
This is a sabotage of the American diplomatic machine. This is an affront to the professional Foreign Service that we have spent decades, a century in building in our country. And I don’t know what it foretells.
William Brangham:
Sabotage?
John Dinkelman:
Definitely. When individuals have spent their lives devoted to a profession, to representing our country overseas, and, en masse, you tell those who have qualified to represent our country, to carry out our policies, to execute any administration, any president’s goals in any given country, when you tell them all summarily that for some reason they don’t qualify, something is definitely wrong.
William Brangham:
I mean, you heard the State Department’s position on this. They’re arguing, this happens with every administration. Many of these people were appointed by the Biden administration, and the president wants his own people in there.
What do you make of that argument?
John Dinkelman:
This — it is entirely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the reality. Every American ambassador submits their resignation to the incoming president, who either chooses to accept or reject those resignations at that time.
William Brangham:
And all these ambassadors did that?
John Dinkelman:
All of these ambassadors did that about one year ago right now. And the Trump administration not only refused those resignations, but actually encouraged the individuals to remain.
Even within the past few weeks, senior-level Cabinet individuals have visited with these various ambassadors on trips, reaffirming the desire of the administration that they stay in their positions, only to find them getting a phone call and surreptitiously being told they haven’t until January to get out.
William Brangham:
We know that the U.S. already had about 80 vacant ambassadorships before this event. Then this comes. What is your sense of what the impact is going to be on our ability to project American power in ways, soft and hard, all over the world?
John Dinkelman:
Simply put, we’re taking our star players off the field before we can even enter the game.
These individuals will not be able to exercise the personal and professional bona fides and relationships that they have established over decades. And what will be very interesting is who replaces them.
If it’s a member of the professional Foreign Service, I have to worry, as the president of the Foreign Service Association, what kind of loyalty oath are they going to be required to take that demonstrates their fidelity to the administration, in addition to the fidelity that they should have sworn to the Constitution in the first place?
William Brangham:
Have you seen any evidence that there is such a loyalty oath being passed around to potential candidates?
John Dinkelman:
I have not yet seen that, and I am looking for it closely.
William Brangham:
Have you been hearing — I imagine your phone must be ringing off the hook?
John Dinkelman:
Incessantly, yes.
William Brangham:
And what are they saying to you?
John Dinkelman:
They’re hurt. They’re concerned. Many of them are afraid. There is a wonder as to what in the world they could have done that would have caused the ire of our leaders.
They have done everything they could to carry out the policies of the president, as they would for any elected leader of our country, because that’s what the Foreign Service does. But, in this case, they are left stumped, as am I, as to what would have caused this en masse dismissal of our leaders in our Foreign Service.
William Brangham:
Is it possible, just playing devil’s advocate, that, to take the State Department’s stated position, that some of these people were not enacting what President Trump believes is an America first agenda in their positions?
John Dinkelman:
I find it inconceivable.
Individuals like myself who have spent decades trained to make sure that they’re advocating on behalf of our leaders, on behalf of the elected leaders of the United States, it is incomprehensible to me that individuals would do this, much less 30 or 40 of them en masse all at once. It simply cannot happen.
William Brangham:
At the beginning, I put the list up of all those nations that were — where the ambassadors have now been pulled. Are there particular nations, when you look at that list, that you’re — that concern you specifically?
John Dinkelman:
There’s various that concern me, but I’m particularly interested in what’s going on in Guatemala, where not only our ambassador, but our deputy chief of mission, both senior Foreign Service officers with decades of experience each, have been summarily told that they are to leave the post.
Given the immigration crisis that the administration says we are in and the key role that Guatemala plays in that crisis, how we could determine that the individuals in charge of our mission there, on the other side of that problem, working with the other side of the equation, are no longer going to be there and who will fill that gap is beyond me.
William Brangham:
You mentioned earlier to one of my colleagues the concern that you have that, if every new administration comes in and basically guts the corps, civil service, what that does to America’s ability to enact its foreign policy. What did you mean by that?
John Dinkelman:
It will politicize us as a profession. We come into the service sworn loyal to the Constitution and nothing else. And when presidents change — I myself have been through six different presidents and have served willingly under each one of them.
I know that the thousands of men and women in the Foreign Service will continue to do so, because that’s what they were sworn to do. If, on the other hand, we start to move our people in and out with every administration, it’s going to deplete our ability as diplomats to get the job done. It will hurt our credibility and it will hurt our nation in general.
William Brangham:
John Dinkelman, thank you so much for being here.
John Dinkelman:
Thank you.