U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
> > >
> >The New York Times, February 27, 2003
> > >
> > The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of
> >resignation to
> > Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat
> >who
> > till now was serving as a Political Counselor in the US Embassy in
> >Athens
> > Greece, while in the past 20 years he had served in United States
> >Embassies
> > from Tel Aviv, Israel to Casablanca, Morocco to Yerevan, Armenia.
> > >
> > >
> > Dear Mr. Secretary:
> > >
> I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of
> the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S.
> Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The
> baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something
> back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was
> paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out
> diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them
> that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my
> country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic
> arsenal.
> > >
> It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would
> become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish
> bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is
> what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human
> nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe
> that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the
> interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
> > >
> The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with
> American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of
> war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy
> that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense
> since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest
> and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever
> known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not
> security.
> > >
> The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic
> self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American
> problem.
> Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such
> systematic
> manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam.
> > >
> > >
> The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying
> around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first
> time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism.
> > >
> But rather than take credit for those successes and build
> on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic
> political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as
> its bureaucratic ally.
>
> We spread disproportionate terror and confusion
> in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of
> terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a
> vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to
> weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand
> of government.
>
> September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of
> American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is the Russia
> of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire
> thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
>
> We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world
> that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done
> too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S.
> interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our
> aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of
> Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan
> to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we
> indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind
> in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming
> military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of
> post-war
> Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a
> brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
>
> We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our
> friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over
> a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is
> justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into
> complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President
> condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and
> allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior
> officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?
>
> I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in
> Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and
> closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine.
> Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the
> world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong
> international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When
> our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry.
> And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United
> States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the
> planet?
>
> Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability.
> You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy
> deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an
> ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the
> President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an
> international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of
> laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our
> foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to
> defend its interests.
>
> I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my
> conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration.
> I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately
> self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from
> outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and
> prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
>
> |
