News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page
NewsMine — war-on-terror — iraq — dissent — Viewing Item |
Us diplomat resignation { February 27 2003 } Subject: US Diplomat resigns in protest
February 27, 2003
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
he 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
has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to
Yerevan.
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 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" 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.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
|
| Files Listed: 50 |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information,
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
