The purpose of an ambassador is to represent the President of the United States in dealing with that country, and to facilitate diplomatic relations. Deliberately choosing an ambassador who is calculated to offend the nation to which he will be assigned is counterproductive, unless you are making a point. The appointment of a female ambassador to a Muslim country could be a calculated slight, with the intent of demonstrating that we are powerful enough to not care what they think of our choice, but that is a deliberately provocative act, and there has to be a motive for it. Selwin Duke had an insteresting column on this aspect of Obama's (and most Progressives') outlook:
Originally Posted by noonwitch
This is just like the contraception mandate. It has nothing to do with contraception, and everything to do with punishing people who don't hold your worldview. Your comment about withholding aid and withdrawing our diplomatic staff simply proves this. Selecting an openly and outspoken gay man as ambassador is calculated to offend, and now you seek to punish them for their being offended. Clearly, you view the beliefs at issue as stupid and takes pleasure in punishing those who dare be so "wrong," as Duke said above, which demonstrates several things, none of which speak well of your character. Try to be a little less petty.
While Barack Obama has often been compared to leaders of the past, it's unlikely anyone has yet associated him with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Ruler of the Seleucid Empire between 175 and 164 B.C., King Antiochus is best known for the persecution of Jews, and one story from the second book of Maccabees is particularly relevant here. As the passage tells us, the king was bent on forcing a Jewish woman and her seven sons to, of all things, eat pork. The boys resisted and were tortured and killed one by one as their mother, who ultimately was also murdered, looked on. What's interesting, though, is that while the victims were being faithful to what they believed was divine dietary injunction, there was no Seleucid commandment stating "Thou shalt compel others to dine on swine." The act of eating such meat was but a trivial matter to Antiochus, yet he nonetheless insisted on imposing his will.
Why would a person do this? It would be for one -- or, more likely, a combination -- of the following reasons:
- He hates the people in question and simply wants to torment them. Or, perhaps more precisely, he hates what they are and wants to destroy what makes them what they are.
- His ego cannot tolerate being defied.
- He views the beliefs at issue as stupid and takes pleasure in punishing those who dare be so "wrong." This is a common human motivation.
- He wants to break the cohesiveness -- and therefore the resistance -- of the target people by forcing them to relinquish the beliefs binding them together.
Of course, while a different factor may be dominant in different situations, and while there is tremendous overlap among them, what's obvious is that an Antiochan desire is one of hostility.
This brings us to a similar situation in our time: King Obama's contraception mandate. The issue was ginned up during the 2012 campaign to rally Democrat support, but that battle has been won and is water under the bridge. Nonetheless and quite bizarrely, Obama insists on trying to force religious employers to fund contraception for their employees, despite the fact that offering such individuals an exemption would cost him nothing politically and would accord with the American tradition of respecting deeply held religious convictions.
And I'm going to relate a story illustrating just how deeply held they can be. I know of a man who, through some fairly unique connections, could make a healthy and relatively labor-free five-figure income selling contraception. He could really, really use the money, too. Yet he has declined the offer in obedience to his religious beliefs. Now, if a person wouldn't even violate such a principle to win himself a treasure, how would he feel about violating it save someone else a trifle?
Yet as with King Antiochus, there is no corresponding principle on the other side. Sure, most everyone likes free stuff, but there is no divine injunction stating that anyone must compel others to pay for his contraception. So who should bend here and where does the onus belong?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2YqFHOwvd
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
That's not entirely true. A country can reject an ambassador's credentials. It recently happened to a Pakistani diplomat who was sent to Saudi Arabia:
Originally Posted by linda22003
Diplomat Whose Name Is Dirty Word in Arabic Rejected as Saudi AmbassadorHowever, the rejection of a diplomat's credentials is a fairly serious issue. The credentials mean that the diplomant is considered accredited to the host government and is considered an officer of the host government. By selecting a controversial pick, a nation is telling the host government that they have to accept their ambassador, not just as a representative, but as a credentialed officer of the host country. The Saudis had a legitimate case (imagine the press coverage of any event involving Pakistan: "Tonight's top story, King Fahd brought Pakistan's Biggest Dick to Mecca for Ramadan."), and the Pakistanis accepted the response, but that is a very rare occurrence.
Published February 04, 2010 /
A high-ranking Pakistani diplomat reportedly cannot be appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia because in Arabic his name translates into a phrase more appropriate for a porn star, referring to the size of male genitals, Foreign Policy reported.
The Arabic transaltion of Akbar Zeb to "biggest d**k" has overwhelmed Saudi officials who have refused to allow his post there.
Zeb has run into this problem before when Pakistan tried to appoint him as ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, where he was rejected for the same reason, according to Foreign Policy.