ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written
by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps
and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling
has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four
Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State
Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of
dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New
York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be
found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp
(See Original)
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.
John Brady Kiesling
=======================+++
U.S.
Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'
By Felicity Barringer
New York Times
(See Original)
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 haveexpressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.)
© : t r u t
h o u t 2002