Congressional Record: March 4, 2003 (Extensions)
Page E363-E364
LETTER OF RESIGNATION BY JOHN BRADY KIESLING
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker I commend to the attention of my colleagues
the following letter of resignation written by American diplomat John
Brady Kiesling. Mr. Kiesling served in the U.S. State Department as
Political Counselor at the American Embassy in Greece before resigning
his post on Thursday, February 27--ending twenty years of public
service. Mr. Kiesling's letter is an eloquent expression of principal
in opposition to war with Iraq and America's heavy-handed approach to
foreign policy under the leadership of President Bush.
US Diplomat John Brady Kiesling,
February 27, 2003.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell,
Letter of Resignation.
ATHENS
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 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
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.
____________________
