- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,418
- Reaction score
- 1,903
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm a bit curious. I know everyone in the U.S. is in hyper-partisan mode right now, but are these really the kinds of statements you think are approrpiate from an acting Ambassador?
Cause from my perspective, this seems way out of line. Could be because we have a tradition of non-partisanship among our civil servants (where you don't seem to), but to have a sitting ambassador spouting off that the challenger winning an election will damage relationships with foreign allies seems a complete breach of acceptable protocol.
And I don't really care if it is true or not. The job of an ambassador is to advance the interests of the country he represents, regardless of who is in power. It is not the ambassador's job to provide speculative commentary about the potential negative implications of a change in governemnt.
U.S. election: With a Mitt Romney victory, U.S. could re-enter ‘go it alone’ era, ambassador says
snips:
A Romney administration would likely pay less heed to the views of Canada and other U.S. allies on important international questions, David Jacobson, American ambassador to Canada, said in an interview Monday.
“Obviously he (Romney) is more willing to go it alone,” Jacobson told the Star in a telephone interview. “He’s going to be less concerned, I think it’s fair to say, about the views of all of our allies.”
...
“The president is more interested in working with our partners around the world to achieve the results we all want,” Jacobson said.
This was a clear example, the ambassador said, of the differences that exist between the two candidates’ approaches on foreign policy issues, “whether you are talking about Iran or Syria or North Korea or China, or you name it.”
Cause from my perspective, this seems way out of line. Could be because we have a tradition of non-partisanship among our civil servants (where you don't seem to), but to have a sitting ambassador spouting off that the challenger winning an election will damage relationships with foreign allies seems a complete breach of acceptable protocol.
And I don't really care if it is true or not. The job of an ambassador is to advance the interests of the country he represents, regardless of who is in power. It is not the ambassador's job to provide speculative commentary about the potential negative implications of a change in governemnt.
U.S. election: With a Mitt Romney victory, U.S. could re-enter ‘go it alone’ era, ambassador says
snips:
A Romney administration would likely pay less heed to the views of Canada and other U.S. allies on important international questions, David Jacobson, American ambassador to Canada, said in an interview Monday.
“Obviously he (Romney) is more willing to go it alone,” Jacobson told the Star in a telephone interview. “He’s going to be less concerned, I think it’s fair to say, about the views of all of our allies.”
...
“The president is more interested in working with our partners around the world to achieve the results we all want,” Jacobson said.
This was a clear example, the ambassador said, of the differences that exist between the two candidates’ approaches on foreign policy issues, “whether you are talking about Iran or Syria or North Korea or China, or you name it.”