The Appointment of Ambassador Palmer

It is difficult to understand the U.S. government’s insistence on designating Larry Palmer as the ambassador to Caracas. According to the State Department, it is expected that Congress will ratify the newly designated ambassador to Venezuela in the next few days, which will give rise to a “more fluid dialogue” with Caracas. Although Mr. Palmer had received the blessings of the Venezuelan government in a formality in which one government asks the other if they welcome this person to be their nation’s representative, such consent became null the moment the Venezuelan head of state questioned his presence in the country. “They say he is the ambassador, but this man is not going to enter.”

The blessing is the step right before a government proceeds with the official appointment of an ambassador. Governments have the right to deny the ambassador. Generally, a confidential answer or a protocol silence after a certain amount of time means that the respective authorities should interpret the lack of response as a negative. The reason for refusing the request might have something to do with the ambassador’s background, verbal declarations or written statements against the country at any moment, or simply due to deteriorated diplomatic relations between both countries. In cases when it is the president or chancellor who is publicly questioning the appointment, it is obvious that this person should no longer be the candidate.

Therefore, we must try to interpret why the insistence on appointing Palmer continues. It could be a way of ignoring a clear message of rejection, which is dangerous since there is no way for a government to impose an ambassador on another country. On the other hand, it could be a previously negotiated deal meant to reestablish confidence, in which case it’s a political contradiction for the country that publicly rejects the appointment — in this case, the Venezuelan government. It could also just as likely be an administrative procedure of the State Department so that Congress, upon approving him, supports the integrity of the appointee and, more than just turning him into an appointee of President Obama, turns him into a representative of the nation as a whole — this in the face of the fragile relations between the two countries.

There are also cases in which the welcomed ambassador appointment was approved by the parliament of the host country, and the appointee was later removed with no explanations given to the country that was expecting them. For example, in a rarely seen diplomatic practice, the four Venezuelan ambassadors appointed in 2005 to European countries were withdrawn without explanation to the governments or the appointees. The respective approvals were retired years later. Removal of approval is also in the jurisdiction of heads of state. Without a doubt, both cases are not in line with typical diplomatic practice.