Leo Brent Bozell III was sworn in as US ambassador to South Africa on Friday. Read J Brooks Spector’s take on the right-wing conservative, first published in April 2025. There has been much discussion about the US government’s decision to declare South Africa’s ambassador Ebrahim Rasoolpersona non grata.
This came almost immediately after Rasool’s critique during a webinar in which he said US President Donald Trump was leading a global supremacist campaign. But that only lasted until Leo Brent Bozell III was nominated by Trump for the job instead. Bozell had been slated to take over the directorship of the US Agency for Global Media, but Elon Musk’s relentless cutting back of the government had led to that position being eliminated with the apparent closure of the agency.
Not surprisingly, Bozell’s nomination then became a news story, at least as far as South Africans were concerned, almost — but not quite — on a par with Rasool’s unexpected departure from the US. Integral to such discussions about ambassadorial appointments, for many, is that there is a somewhat inflated view of what ambassadors do, or how important they really are in the grand scheme of things. Part of that comes from movies such as “Rules of Engagement” and series like “The Diplomat”.
Read Full Article on Daily Maverick
[paywall]
In such products, an ambassador is depicted as either an austere figure with powers beyond the reach of mere mortals, including a speed-dial number on his smartphone so he can order in Seal Team helicopters for a quick air strike or a rooftop rescue mission. Sometimes, they are portrayed as oleaginous characters quite prepared to throw others under the bus in the event of diplomatic or personal difficulties. If neither of those two fancies fits, yet another common view is that ambassadors spend their time playing golf, attending black-tie dinners and having quietentre nousencounters in expensive, secluded restaurants with shady characters who have dubious deals on offer.
But the reality is rather different most of the time. Judging from the way some political appointees initially misunderstand the job, some of those vying for such appointments are less than fully attuned to the actual job, unless they are career foreign service officers who have served in various embassies during their careers or have friends who have done so. Of course, there was a time when many ambassadors might be the sharp point of the lance for US intentions abroad, a kind of unofficial pro-consul, verging on the manner of General Douglas MacArthur during the early years of post-war Japan.
That era pretty much ended from about the time Ambassador Graham Martin was evacuated by helicopter from the US embassy in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), as the South Vietnamese government and army were melting away back in 1975. Nonetheless, even with less freedom of action and influence, now, some non-career ambassadors (or ministers) have wielded great influence in countries of interest to the US. Such individuals usually had already achieved major public stature because of their previous careers.
Names that come to mind include the economist John Kenneth Galbraith and the urban sociologist (and later, Senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who were dispatched to India. Or Prof Edwin Reischauer (a renowned East Asia historian). And, of course, there was also financier (and bootlegger) Joseph P Kennedy Sr, who served in the United Kingdom, although his views about Britain’s ability to hold out against Hitler was counter to the president’s, and so he was recalled.
But to my mind, the most interesting non-career diplomat was Townsend Harris. Who, you say?
[/paywall]
