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
Go
to Original
t r u t h o u t |
Letter
U.S. Diplomat John Brady
Kiesling
Letter of
Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 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.
John Brady Kiesling
Go
to Original
U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting
'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'
By
Felicity Barringer
New York Times
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
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.)
Print This Story
E-mail This Story