U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

[Guest guest]

My expositions on the subject pale by comparison.

========================================================================

========

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,

and as necessary in the political world as storms in the

physical.

... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of

government.

-- Jefferson

========================================================================

========

February 27, 2003

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

The following is the text of Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation

to

Secretary of State Colin L. . 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 . 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

========================================================================

========