|
Home
US Diplomat Resigns
Due to War on Iraq
|
Its good to hear that there
are people of integrity within the US structure who
are passionate about the issues of peace… this is a good letter….
Elaine
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
The New York Times nytimes.com
February 27, 2003
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
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 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 Counsellor 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 offence and defence
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.
The New York Times Company http://www.nytco.com/
Privacy Policy http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html
Copyright 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html
Elaine
Dyer
Catalyst
"Timatanga"
9 Mamari Road
Whenuapai
Auckland New Zealand
Home Disclaimer/Fair Use |