Special Envoys

Because I was sadly unable to attend Great Decisions with everyone last Sunday, I want to share my thoughts on Special Envoys.
I think Special Envoys are useful only when the official capacity of the State Department or other Bureau is unable to address certain concerns. For example, there is no U.S. Ambassador to North Korea, for obvious political reasons. However, because interaction between the US and North Korea is necessary and inevitable, it makes sense to have a Special Envoy who can stay on top of everything.
However, Special Envoys are likely to complicate diplomacy in places where multiple outlets for communication already exist, such as in the Middle East. For good reason, many State Department officials feel that their toes are being stepped on. Early in his campaign and in his Presidency, Obama promised to bolster the number of diplomats in the State Department. And I think that is where he should be concentrating his resources. Working around the State Department only weakens its strategic abilities.
Lastly, the special interest Special Envoys are absolutely silly. A Climate Change Envoy? Seriously? This seems like a waste of resources. Any interest group can come along and demand a Special Envoy. How about Special Envoy to the Elderly Citizens of the World? I can see the AARP pressing for that one. Or Special Envoy to Women’s Independence? Perhaps a suggestion from NOW. Political ties, webs, and organization already exist for special interest groups. Obama shouldn’t be giving into these groups, even if it sounds nice and friendly on the nightly news.
I hope that Obama can limit his envoys to the places where they are really needed. However, at the rate he’s going, this is unlikely. I hope that Clinton can learn to hold her ground.