.
On Thursday, 27 February 2003, John
Brady Kiesling, a member of the United States Foreign Service
Corps and Political Counselor to the U.S. Embassy in Greece,
resigned his position. He served four Presidents over a
twenty-year period. The following letter, delivered to Secretary
of State Coliln Powell, was reprinted in The New York Times.
The irony, I believe, is that it took Mr. Kiesling such a long
period of time to reach the conclusion that U.S. Foreign Policy
was largely based on opportunism rather than principles based on
the support of liberty, justice, equality of opportunity and
citizen participation in governance. History will judge the extent
to which millions of innocent people have suffered or been killed
because the United States -- the ostensible leading social
democracies -- has allowed financial gain, monopolistic control
over natural resources and short-term political stalemates rather
than the defense of human rights to dictate policy.
EDWARD J. DODSON - 8 March 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 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.
|