America’s next ambassador to South Africa should arrive soon. While some South Africans argue his past views make him the wrong man at the wrong time for this important job, embracing his arrival but challenging his misunderstandings of South African realities can contribute to healing a damaged bilateral relationship. In recent statements, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola has expressed sharp critiques of American positions ambassador-designate L Brent Bozell III had stressed were his on his call sheet in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings, as well as criticism of the recent arrest by US forces of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
While Lamola did not specifically voice opposition to Bozell’s assignment to Pretoria,City Pressreported that he was “carefully considering the credentials of the new US ambassador-designate”. He told the publication, “Credentials will be presented, the process will be followed, and at that time, the President will make a decision.” After Bozell was confirmed by the US Senate and took his oath of office last week, some South Africans are arguing that the new American ambassador’s credentials, which would allow him to take up his posting in Pretoria, should not be accepted by the South African government. Are opponents of Bozell’s assignment to Pretoria acting out of principle — or is this more a convenient target for expressing anger at American criticisms of South African government policies, such as its pursuit of a genocide case at the International Court of Justice?
Yes, it is true that Bozell clearly was no supporter of South African liberation organisations that advocated bringing the old regime to an end. He put such views in writing in the 1980s. But his stance was not unique.
Read Full Article on Daily Maverick
[paywall]
Others in positions of authority also labelled those groups as “terrorists”. Some supported the Inkatha Freedom Party as the best avenue for change, others backed some kind of cantonal system to protect group rights, and some argued for qualified support for the National Party’s continued rule, arguing its actions could be ameliorated through a policy of “constructive engagement”. Things change, people change, just as they should.
Bozell has not been nominated to be ambassador to the old regime, but rather to the one that exists in the here and now. What Bozell’s critics should appreciate is that one of an American president’s constitutional powers, subject to nominees’ confirmations by the Senate, is to appoint his country’s representatives to other nations. At least from the beginning of the 20th century, presidents usually have appointed a majority of their ambassadors from among the pool of senior career diplomats, although many of the most prestigious positions — such as to London, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Beijing and Tokyo — go to political appointees who were political supporters of the incumbent president and — often — were substantial contributors to their election or re-election campaigns.
It is true that many of these individuals were successes in their previous work, but sometimes turned out to be less than distinguished as senior diplomatic representatives. Nevertheless, there have also been political appointees who have had serious policy and academic chops and who have been able to make real contributions to nurturing the bilateral relationships they worked on.
[/paywall]
