My Letter of Resignation
|HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE Please make a donation today!|
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.
comments powered by Disqus
john landis - 1/8/2004
It's insane to compare the French involvement in Ivory Coast to the massacre in Iraq.The landing of a few hundred legionaires to the bombing of civilians with cluster bombs.
It's not at all about a dream world my dear friend.It's about integrity,conviction and big cohones(pardon my spanish).Mr.Kiesling sacrificed a career for what he believed was wright.His honorable stance is without precedence in political circles.
Charles S. Connolly - 3/18/2003
I applaud Mr. Kiesling for his courageous stand for peace. He is a brilliant man and his letter is the most eloquent statement of why we should not wage war on Iraq that I've read. Hopefully he will find his way back into public service in the future. We need him.
FirstFoot - 3/14/2003
I'm deeply moved by the letter and sorry, and unsurprised, that it has made no difference to the burger-eating war-apes.
jeffrey verhey - 3/14/2003
Will J. Richardson - 3/13/2003
Mr. Kiesling states:
"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."
Mr. Kiesling please give one example demonstrating the constraint of one of "our foes" by the "international system . . . of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values"
Mr. Kiesling states:
"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."
Mr. Kiesling, please identify the "narrow and mercenary U.S. interests" served by the United States insisting that either the members of the United Nations collectively enforce those Iraq resolutions of which Iraq remains in defiance, or the United States will enforce those United Nations' resolutions unilaterally. Since you imply that Bush is undertaking the Iraq war for personal domestic political considerations exactly how does Bush benefit from destroying the "international system we built with such toil and treasure".
It is unfortunate for Mr. Kiesling that his individual preference for adherence to his personal code of international norms does not obtain internationally. Why is it acceptable for France to invade Ivory Coast without United Nations' sanction and for the United States to invade Iraq to enforce United Nations' resolutions duly debated and adopted by that same United Nations.
I am reminded of my mother telling me "If your friends jump off a cliff would you jump off a cliff?"
Jonathan Dresner - 3/12/2003
The most powerful weapon of the United States has always been its ideals. Administrations come and go, enemies rise and fall, technologies change. The ability of the United States to inspire its citizens to energetic and effective action, even self-sacrifice, and to weaken the resolve of its enemies, has come from its attempt to model and extend the highest level of personal and political rights available anywhere in the world. The greatest moments of US history are those where it has striven to extend rights and freedoms within itself and to protect and extend rights and freedoms around the world.
The United States has historically been one of the few nations in the world to act in the interests of others, even when self-interest was not involved.
Not that the United States doesn't have its own interests, and has acted on them, sometimes positively and sometimes shamefully. But Mr. Kiesling's resignation is further evidence that the United States has a unique perspective and self-imposed responsibility to be a better nation and to make a better world.
- While French historians take a common view of WW I, British and German don't
- Historian: Proclamation Naming Pa. State Gun Gets Facts Wrong
- Irish slave owners were compensated historian reveals
- Two historians are in a race against time to preserve early church records from destruction
- Yale's Jay Winter sums up what we should remember about WW I