Valeriy Chaly / Dzerkalo Tyzhnia
Who should occupy the office in the building in Washington, older than the White House and the Capitol?
You’ve already guessed that it’s about one of the historical landmarks of the American capital — the Forrest-Marbury House, where the Embassy of Ukraine in the USA is now located. It was here on March 29, 1791, that the first President of the USA, George Washington, met with local landowners to agree on land purchases and define the boundaries of the future federal district of Columbia, where the U.S. capital has been located since then.
From the ambassador’s office window, there is a view of the Potomac, over which the U.S. President’s Marine One usually flies, reminding the temporary occupant of this office (typically a four-year term) of the significance of their mission and simultaneously offering a unique opportunity to serve their country in an important diplomatic position.
Choosing a candidate for the post of Ukrainian Ambassador to the USA has always been a challenging task for our presidents. And not only because this position is post number one in the entire system of Ukraine’s foreign diplomatic institutions (FDP). In the informal hierarchy of the domestic diplomatic service, it holds a rank equivalent to that of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in some periods (depending on the depth and dynamics of the ambassador’s relations with the President of Ukraine), it was even higher. This position in Washington was somewhat of a glove, that could stretch significantly or suddenly tighten, depending on the influence of its holder.
The history of the embassy dates back not to the times of independent Ukraine, but much earlier. However, in both the early and late 20th century, the most crucial tasks for official representatives of our state in the USA were to establish bilateral relations on a new basis and organize the development of the American segment of Ukraine’s foreign policy — starting from organizing the embassy’s work in Washington and FDP in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston, and ending with the expansion of Ukraine’s honorary consuls network in the USA.
Moreover, Ukrainian ambassadors to the USA have traditionally also served concurrently as ambassadors to one or two Caribbean countries — Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, or Jamaica. At the same time, the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador to the USA is traditionally appointed as Ukraine’s representative to the Organization of American States, whose headquarters is located in Washington.
With the new Law of Ukraine “On Diplomatic Service” coming into force, the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Ukraine to the USA (as well as ambassadors in other countries) has received additional powers. According to paragraph 8 of article 5 of the Law, he or she is “the highest official representative of Ukraine, who exercises overall leadership, coordination, and control over the activities of officials and other staff of the Embassy of Ukraine, heads of other foreign diplomatic establishments of Ukraine in the country of accreditation, as well as officials and other persons, members of Ukrainian delegations present in this country for the purpose of performing official or service duties.”
Thus, the ambassador leads, coordinates, and controls the work of representatives of other departments abroad as part of the overseas diplomatic missions or even delegations, regardless of their positions in Ukraine. Of course, the implementation of this norm depends on the level of trust and support the ambassador receives from the President of Ukraine and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as on his personal authority among the state leadership, members of parliament, executive authorities’ leaders, and Ukrainian society in general.
It is also very important for this official to establish trusting relationships with key political figures in the host country and to engage in active and effective work to fulfill the assigned tasks in the U.S. without crossing the red lines regarding interference in the host country’s internal politics.
Previous personal contacts and interaction in the American direction will certainly be an advantage, but it should not be forgotten that deep rooting in the host country (business ownership, real estate, joint companies, or even documents indicating permanent resident status) gives partners and intelligence services of other states more opportunities to achieve their specific goals.
It’s obvious that prior deep knowledge of the history of the American continent, the specifics of the U.S. political structure, results and problems of bilateral cooperation, the foundation of bilateral agreements, and the state of implementation of current agreements are simply necessary. For instance, implementing agreements reached at the highest level in the military-technical sphere requires preparation, implementation, and realization over several years, which in Ukrainian practice for appointments to Washington is now becoming the task of not one, but two or three ambassadors.
According to the Ukrainian diplomatic school and traditions, the chosen candidate must also meet the formula of “three P’s” by the outstanding Ukrainian diplomat and former Foreign Minister Hennadii Udovenko: professionalism, patriotism, integrity. These three qualities are the basic foundation and main selection criteria for every successful diplomat.
Professionalism — deep knowledge of their field, excellent command of languages, and the ability to conduct complex negotiations. Patriotism — a genuine love for their country and uncompromising defense of national interests on the international stage. Integrity — honesty, high morals, adherence to principles, and respect for colleagues.
It’s obvious that any unresolved corruption cases (even without a final court decision), actions in previous positions that contradict these principles, or the lack of prior experience in foreign policy directions are not even considered. In such circumstances, a candidate approved by the President of Ukraine will at least provoke distrust among colleagues, and in some cases, as we have already seen, among the entire Ukrainian society.
What needs to be done to avoid making a mistake in choosing a candidate for the position of Ambassador of Ukraine to the USA? The answer is simple: adhere to all international norms and rules and Ukrainian legislation, primarily the Constitution of Ukraine, laws of Ukraine, and all established procedures.
This candidate should predominantly be chosen from among career diplomats who have sufficient experience and are ready for a challenging, multiyear sprint in a high-pressure work mode from the first day in the USA and upon presenting copies of credentials at the State Department, and subsequently — credentials to the President of the USA. It may also be a so-called political appointee, but he or she must have previously demonstrated outstanding abilities in foreign policy positions, and all candidate procedures must be adhered to.
As known, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine submits a candidate to the President of Ukraine, who appoints (and dismisses) the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador by decree. Few pay attention to the fact that the Constitution states that acts of the President of Ukraine issued within these powers (point 5 of article 106), are co-signed by the Prime Minister of Ukraine and the minister responsible for the act and its implementation, i.e., the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (note: both appointment and dismissal!).
After this, according to internal procedures, a series of checks are conducted, which for some heads of foreign diplomatic missions, who receive the highest level of clearance and access to state secrets, must be particularly thorough. Meanwhile, the candidate must pass an exam in at least English (for the USA, this is generally sufficient, though knowledge of other languages is also a bonus). At least the candidate’s command of English must be demonstrated at a high level (preferably a professional level, which includes not only language knowledge but also the ability to act as a translator, which can sometimes be useful).
Also, according to international rules, an official (properly formatted) document confirming the readiness to accept the designated candidate by the host country is sent — the so-called request for agrément. This request and the response to it are usually confidential to avoid harming the candidate’s reputation in case of refusal. Despite the fact that the host country has the full right to reject a candidate and is not obligated to explain the reasons for its refusal, this is rarely applied since diplomatic relations are a two-way street: today you do this, tomorrow it may come back to you. Therefore, rejection of an official request (!) is more the exception than the rule. Only after obtaining, once again, officially formatted consent is the corresponding decree of the President of Ukraine prepared.
It is worth mentioning that the abuse of unofficial inquiries (even at the country’s leadership level) to official persons of the state where the ambassador is planned to be sent, which has recently become a common practice, is not the norm. It is easier for a given country to reject a verbal preliminary inquiry than an official request for agrément. Such a practice may give the President wider political maneuverability within Ukraine but certainly does not contribute to building trustworthy and predictable bilateral relations.
The leadership of Ukraine began to widely use such preliminary consultations from 2019 during the preparation for the rotation of the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, when, after a series of informal requests to Washington, several proposed candidacies were rejected. After this, an official request for agrément was sent with the candidacy of experienced Ukrainian diplomat Oleh Shamshur, which did not raise any doubts — and, of course, the American side quickly provided this agrément. This occurred during the summer vacations, indicating an established constructive and dynamic interaction between the US State Department and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine through the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. But there was surprise both in Foggy Bottom (the metonymic name of the US State Department located in this area of Washington. — Ed.) and in Georgetown (a metonym for Washington’s political, diplomatic, intellectual elite. — Ed.), when the Ukrainian side, having already received the agrément, refused this appointment.
A similar story occurred with the appointment of the ambassador to the United Kingdom: several candidacies were rejected on verbal requests, and the decree of the President of Ukraine appeared even before the request for agrément was sent, which contradicts international diplomatic practice.
Perhaps, when choosing a new candidate for the position of the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States now, it would be necessary to consider both the positive and negative experiences. It is crucial to understand that the tenure during the war is too responsible, and the tasks that need to be solved on the American direction — the provision or sale of arms, including the $400 million allocated by Congress for these purposes but not formalized into Pentagon contracts; sanctions legislation; cooperation in military-technical collaboration and cybersecurity; working during a complex transitional period of the US Congress midterm elections; building effective interaction with the American states (which are, essentially, countries united in a federation, some of which rank among the world’s top economies); using the lobbying of American defense industry companies; ensuring communication and coordination of the active efforts of the Ukrainian diaspora; informational work and hundreds of other tasks, — these require the swiftest personnel decisions and avoidance of pauses in the strategic Ukraine-US partnership.
It is noticeable that potential candidates for the position and their “fan clubs” on both sides of the Atlantic have started lobbyist campaigns to promote desired representatives for consideration by the President of Ukraine. It is good that Ukrainians and Americans understand the importance of the right choice. But such matters are not resolved in the media, although the informational component also has some influence. Special attention should be paid to candidates promoted by lobbyists from the country of future residence. After all, the ambassador to the US must protect Ukraine’s interests, not just be comfortable for the host country.
Names, evidently, are important, but even more important are the principles, norms, and rules, neglect of which can lead to a wrong choice. There is no longer a right to error.
On the cover: the building of the Ukrainian Embassy in the USA. Photo: Wikipedia
