Obama’s man in London needs to stop bashing Bush, immerse himself in domestic political discourse, and get out and meet some true Brits, says Irwin Stelzer
‘He is not even a diplomat,’ sniffed BBC News when Louis Susman took up his post as America’s ambassador to the Court of St James. An Obama Chicago crony, the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill rushed to point out from his perch in Washington — ‘a little bit of Chicago’s ruthless and combative political machine is soon to descend on the decorous calm of the Court of St James’.
Because Susman had donated some $200,000 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and hoovered up so much more campaign cash — an estimated $1 million — that he earned the title of ‘vacuum cleaner’, the chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy, lifelong professional diplomat Thomas Pickering, told the BBC that the appointment smacks of ‘simony’, the ecclesiastical crime of paying for holy offices or positions in the hierarchy.
Never mind that Susman’s predecessor, Robert Tuttle, was also appointed in part because he had raised a bushel of money, in his case for George W. Bush, and that lack of diplomatic experience did not prevent him from becoming one of our most successful ambassadors in recent times — times that were not easy ones for a Bush representative in Britain. As with Susman, the British elite professed horror at Tuttle’s appointment: a man who is a major and highly discerning collector of modern art, and member of the board of Ford Motor Company, was repeatedly referred to as a used-car salesman.
It is certainly understandable that professional foreign service officers resent the appointment of someone to a prime post who has not done his or her time rising through the ranks of the Foreign Office or State Department bureaucracy. All trade unions want the good jobs reserved for their members. But it is not obvious that a professional bureaucrat is better qualified to represent his nation than is someone with broad experience outside the confines of the foreign policy establishment, and direct access to the President.
Make no mistake: ambassadors still matter, even in this day of globe-trotting presidents and prime ministers, who meet frequently at G20 and similar gatherings. Bush originally didn’t think so, and left the post here vacant for over a year. With the President talking to Tony Blair on a regular basis, who needs an ambassador, his advisers asked?
It turns out that America did. With no one to represent America and its policies, not only to the British government but at think-tank and university seminars, and on the always anti-American BBC, the gap was filled by itinerant policy wonks, usually from the far right and the far left of the American political spectrum, the former offering up belligerent, inaccurate statements of US intentions in various hot spots, the latter criticising all aspects of American policy and especially the President.
So George-calling-Tony didn’t work, and if that didn’t, neither will reliance on the far frostier relationship between Barack and Gordon. Enter Susman, a man with enough money to run the embassy in style and support the round of entertainments that are crucial to a successful ambassadorship, someone fond of Britain, and well connected in the City at a time when US-UK financial co-operation is much needed.
But, unfortunately, Susman also seems to be a prisoner of the permanent Obama campaign against George W. Bush. The President’s trademark has become an attack on all that America stood for in the eight years before he, Barack Hussein Obama, appeared on the scene. We are unilateral, insensitive bullies — or were, until Obama rescued us from ourselves.
Ambassador Susman, of course, does not make policy. He carries out the President’s orders. But is it really necessary for him to follow the Obama practice of including an attack on America in his press interviews? Blair’s subservience to a ‘bullying’ Bush was ‘unhealthy’, he told the Financial Times in his first media interview since moving into Winfield House. ‘Many people here in the UK didn’t think it was healthy because it was without questioning and interaction.’ True, but the fact that ‘many people’ think something doesn’t make it so. Blair decided that it is in Britain’s interests to remain close to America, in part because such closeness adds to Britain’s clout within the EU. But he never surrendered Britain’s right to influence policy, and often succeeded. In deference to Blair, Bush decided to make one more try to get the UN to agree to the use of force to make Saddam Hussein abide by UN resolutions. In response to Blair’s domestic political needs, Bush reluctantly agreed to a ‘roadmap’ for peace in the Middle East. Earlier, in deference to the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s requests, Ronald Reagan over-rode his State Department and threw US support behind Britain during the Falklands war, forfeiting much goodwill in neighbouring Latin America. America might be the senior partner in this special relationship since the Roosevelt-Churchill era, but Bush’s treatment of Blair and of British interests can hardly be classified as ‘bullying’, as Susman suggested in his interview.
It would be in the interests of both our countries if Ambassador Susman would abandon Obama campaign mode, with its overwrought attacks on America’s treatment of our allies, and concentrate on learning more about the nuances of political discourse in Britain.
First, his reference to ‘bullying’ by America is grist for the mill of those who believe the special relationship is a made-in-America fiction, designed to conceal a one-way street in which Britain bows to America’s needs, while we ignore UK interests.
Second, he should curb his enthusiasm for the EU, lest the Irish, whose ‘no’ vote derailed the Lisbon Treaty, reverse course, prompting a new British Tory government to hold the referendum that Gordon Brown denied them, in which case it will almost certainly be defeated, leaving Ambassador Susman on the wrong side of British public opinion.
Third, he should be careful lest his stated desire to reach out to Britain’s Muslim population puts him in the company of folks who mean the US and Britain harm.
And finally, he might drop his unfortunate habit of arguing that Barack Obama’s oratorical skills match those of Winston Churchill. Above all, he should get out of Grosvenor Square, and his official car now and then. He will meet British citizens who love America, warts and all.