Key State Department Communications Post Losing Ambassador Status
The Biden administration appears set on changing the State Department position in charge of communications policy, moving the coordinator for international communications and information policy from a Senate-confirmed political post to one held by a foreign service officer. That's raising concerns the appointee will no longer have the political standing to meet on an equivalent basis with counterparts from other nations or within the federal government, former government officials said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Concern about the coordinator position bubbled to the surface in recent days after Biden announced last week (see 2206030039) he will nominate Nate Fick as ambassador at large for cyberspace and digital policy at State. The nomination could take a while to move forward since the Senate has a long line of similar nominations to process, said lawyers active in international issues.
Fick, if confirmed, would head the new Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy (CDP), and the coordinator would be a deputy to Fick. But foreign service officers had sought to have the coordinator position made available to someone in their ranks and the Biden administration apparently agreed. One former official said the post has already been advertised within the department. The State Department didn’t comment. Robert Strayer held the equivalent post under President Donald Trump. It had been held before that by a series of high-profile officials including Richard Beaird, David Gross, Vonya McCann and Daniel Sepulveda.
Mike O’Rielly, who as an FCC commissioner raised concerns about U.S. participation in international telecom bodies, said the move raises questions. “Administrations absolutely have a right to restructure, but any direction that lowers the prominence and significance of the role would be a mistake and disadvantageous in international settings,” O’Rielly told us. “The current structure is already suboptimal and devaluing it more will further harm U.S. negotiating positions, and as a result, U.S. companies,” he said.
"In diplomacy, perception is everything,” said Cooley’s Robert McDowell, also a former FCC member. “This position is hugely important to the trajectory of global internet freedom,” he said.
Rob Frieden, emeritus professor of telecommunications and law at Penn State University, said offering the job to a professional would be a mixed blessing. “It makes sense to include foreign service officers in the talent pool for senior international telecommunications and information policy posts, including the delegation head to ITU conferences,” he said: “Over several decades, not all political appointees had the necessary experience and skills.”
But any “real or perceived degradation in stature of a lead U.S. representative would further erode this nation's standing at a critical time,” Frieden said. “The U.S. needs senior representatives with the same diplomatic status held by representatives from other nations,” he said: “China and Russia are working aggressively to expand the ITU's mission to include internet governance, and the U.S. needs more nations to support its concerns about the installation of Chinese manufactured network equipment."
“Arguably, not having an ambassador designation for the position served the U.S. well over the years,” emailed Anthony Rutkowski, former counselor to two ITU secretaries-general. “It wasn't until Diana Dougan twisted arms in the Reagan White House, where she had clout because of her husband, that they slipped through her appointment during Congressional recess so she could join the ambassador's club,” he said: “It thereafter put the slot on the Plum List -- which has not served the U.S. well.”
Rutkowski said it’s “pretty clear over the past century that what is respected is substantive knowledge and treatment of relevant topics rather than playing the ambassador card.” Dougan, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, didn’t comment. Rutkowski blogged about the Fick nomination Monday.
Others hope the administration will rethink the move. The change would be regarded as downgrading the position “not only here at home but also abroad,” emailed Free State Foundation President Randolph May: “I don’t think there is a plausible case to be made that the issues in an international communications policy portfolio are any less important now than they have been in the past. If anything, they are more important.”