By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Stay informed on the 2024 US Presidential Election with the Financial Times. Receive exclusive insights, analysis, and data through our dedicated election hub and Democracy 2024 section. A free guide detailing the new administration, including cabinet appointments and policy plans, is available via the White House Watch newsletter. Follow the FT for comprehensive coverage of this pivotal election year.
Read the original article here
France is understandably upset by Donald Trump’s choice of Charles Kushner as the US ambassador to Paris. The appointment is viewed as a blatant insult, not only to the French people but also to the very concept of diplomatic relations. Kushner’s background, marked by a felony conviction for campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and witness tampering, is hardly the profile one would expect from a representative of a major world power.
This nomination is particularly galling given Kushner’s lack of any apparent qualifications for the position. His expertise appears to lie solely within the realm of real estate and his family connections, not in international relations or diplomacy. This raises serious questions about the seriousness with which the US administration views the relationship with France, a key ally.
The lack of linguistic competence further compounds the issue. Kushner’s inability to speak French is seen as disrespectful, particularly given the cultural importance of language in France. It suggests a profound disregard for French culture and a lack of effort to even make a basic attempt at bridging cultural divides. This is not just a matter of politeness but a significant impediment to effective communication and diplomacy.
Many commentators highlight the inherent inappropriateness of appointing a convicted felon to such a high-profile position. The fact that Kushner received a pardon does not erase the severity of his past crimes, which include ethically reprehensible acts like hiring a prostitute to entrap his brother-in-law. This raises concerns about the integrity of the US government and its ability to conduct itself with the moral authority expected of a world leader.
The French reaction is not solely based on Kushner’s personal history. It’s a reflection of a broader sentiment regarding the Trump administration’s approach to international relations. The choice is perceived as another example of the administration’s disregard for established diplomatic norms and its seeming preference for personal loyalty over professional competence. This contributes to a sense of disrespect and undermines the trust that is essential for strong international partnerships.
The situation also raises questions about the vetting process within the US government. How could someone with such a controversial past, and lacking in basic qualifications, even be considered for such a position? This points to a larger systemic issue, suggesting a lack of rigorous vetting and a potential disregard for due diligence in the selection of diplomatic personnel.
The incident has sparked wider debate about the state of US-French relations and the broader implications for the international standing of the United States. The appointment appears to be deliberately provocative, aimed at upsetting a key ally, rather than fostering cooperation. This risks further straining relations and jeopardizing crucial collaborations on matters of shared concern.
Many are suggesting that France should formally reject Kushner’s appointment by refusing to grant him an agrément, the formal approval needed for an ambassador to take up their post. This is a legitimate course of action, allowing France to signal its strong disapproval of the nomination without resorting to more confrontational measures. This would allow France to clearly state its position while still leaving open the possibility of future cooperation if a more suitable candidate were nominated.
The entire affair is viewed by many as a further illustration of a wider pattern of erratic and disruptive behavior by the US administration in the international arena. The reaction in France underscores the deep concerns felt by many around the world about the direction the US is heading under this leadership. This event is not simply about one individual, but a significant moment reflecting the broader tensions and challenges in the current international climate.
Ultimately, the situation highlights the critical importance of selecting qualified and trustworthy individuals to represent a country on the international stage. Kushner’s nomination is seen as a failure on the part of the US administration to uphold these essential standards, and France’s strong reaction serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of such decisions. The long-term ramifications for US-French relations and the wider international standing of the US remain to be seen, but the initial response clearly indicates that this unconventional appointment will not be without its considerable repercussions.