U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
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 Americašs 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 so 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" [they
may hate us as long as they fear us] really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to Americašs 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 Americašs
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.
John Brady Kiesling
http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml
U.S. Diplomat Resigns,
Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'
By Felicity Barringer
New York Times - Thursday 27 February
2003
UNITED NATIONS -
A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies
from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week
in protest against the country's policies on Iraq.
The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor
at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation
letter, "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."
Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years,
said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter
to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing
Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision.
He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by
the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues.
"No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed,"
he said. "Too much has been invested in the war."
Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had
no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department
policy not to comment on personnel matters.
In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York
Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr.
Powell: "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."
His letter continued: "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."
It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in
the State Department's culture of public support for policy,
regardless of private feelings, to resign with this kind of
public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials
quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's
Balkans policy. Asked if his views were widely shared among
his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my
colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving
ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded
with people who want to play the team game - we have a very
strong premium on loyalty."
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.)
©Copyright 2002 by TruthOut.org
|
