On My Majesty's Foreign Service

by pessimist

A friend of mine sent me the following joke about that a diplomat is. But as I read it, I thought maybe 'diplomat' wasn't what they had in mind. Maybe it was George Warmonger Bush. So I changed it:

Prezidint....a person who:

• Always knows what to talk about, but doesn't always talk about what he knows.

• Has a straightforward way of dodging issues.

• Can bring home the bacon without spilling the beans.

• Always tries to settle problems created by other prezidints (Like Prezidint Poppy?).

• Can always make himself misunderstood.

• Can make nothing sound like something.

• Can put his best foot forward when he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

• Divides his time between running for office and running for cover.

• Can juggle a hot potato long enough for it to become a cold issue.

• Will approach every question with an open mouth.

• Puts his cards on the table, but still has some up each sleeve.

• Straddles an issue whenever he isn't dodging one.

• Comes right out and says what he thinks when he agrees with you.

• Lets you do all the talking while he gets what he wants.

• Will lay down your life for his country.

• Will refuse to answer any question on the ground it might illuminate him.

Now, doesn't this sound like Owwer Leedur?

Switching back to diplomacy:

DIPLOMAT: Pronunciation: 'diplu`mat Definition: [n] an official engaged in international negotiations [n] a person who deals tactfully with others

This DOESN'T sound like George Warmonger Bush. Might that be why career professional US diplomats are so upset with him?

Former US diplomats send protest letter to Bush

Inspired by the attack of their British colleagues on Tony Blair's foreign policy [see below- ed], more than 20 former US diplomats have so far signed a letter to President George W. Bush protesting against his pro-Israeli stance. Former ambassadors to Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have signed so far. Others include John Brady Kiesling, one of at least three US diplomats who resigned last year in protest against the war on Iraq, and Greg Thielmann, until recently a senior State Department intelligence analyst who has accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes and alleged ties with terrorist groups.

The letter was drafted by Andrew Killgore, former ambassador to Qatar, and Richard Curtiss, former chief inspector of the US Information Agency. The letter was to have been sent to the White House today, but an organiser said it was being held to give more former envoys the chance to sign.

It is already well known in Washington that numerous past and present officers of the US State Department, especially Arabists, are distressed by what they see as the cost in the region of Mr Bush's intimate support of Mr Sharon. For this reason the White House has effectively sidelined the State Department over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The letter begins by applauding the 52 former British diplomats who attacked the UK prime minister, and ends by calling for a reassertion of "American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East".

While the former UK diplomats made the headlines at home, the American letter has stirred little media interest so far.

Gee, I wonder why. Was Sinclair Broadcasting deciding what we can and cannot see again?

The letter accuses Mr Bush of reversing long- standing American policy in the Middle East by endorsing the demands of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, that Israel retain big settlements in the occupied West Bank and deny the right of return to Palestinian refugees.

"Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. A return to the time- honoured American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill-will in Europe and the Middle East, even in Iraq," the letter says.

So how does this message stand up to the joke's points?

• Can keep his shirt on while getting something off his chest.

• Can put his foot down without stepping on someone's toes.

• Can say the nastiest things in the nicest way.

• Can tell a man he's open-minded when he means he has a hole in his head.

• Can tell you to go to hell so tactfully that you look forward to the trip.

• Knows how far to go before he goes too far.

Looks like we found some diplomats!

So what of their brothers from across the pond? Here's what they had to say to Tony "The Poodle" Blair which inspired the American diplomats to act:

Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East

More than 50 former British diplomats have signed a letter to Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy. They had "watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in Parliament, they said. They urged the prime minister to start influencing America's "doomed" policy in the Middle East or stop backing US policy in the Middle East as "a matter of the highest urgency".

The 52 diplomats urged Mr Blair to use his alliance with Mr Bush to exert "real influence as a loyal ally... If that is unacceptable or unwelcome, there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure." The ambassadors accuse the US-led coalition of having "no effective plan" for Iraq after the war and an apparent disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians. They said Mr Blair had "merely waited" for the US to advance a "road map" for peace that had raised expectations of a lasting Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

'Dismay'

They condemn Mr Bush's decision to endorse an Israeli plan to retain some settlements in the West Bank as an illegal and one-sided step - and criticise Mr Blair's public support for the move. "Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land," the diplomats said.

Anxieties public

They urged Mr Blair to act urgently to challenge the UK's portrayal as a partner in US policies condemned by the Arab and Muslim world. "We feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment," said the letter, sent to Reuters.

BBC News Online's World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds said: "The list of names includes many former ambassadors in the Middle East and the publication of the letter shows that their frustration at Iraqi and Middle East policy has broken into the open.

The attack by the 52 diplomats, including former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, is being seen as unprecedented in scope and scale. The document's co-ordinator, former British ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles, said: "A number of us felt that our opinion on these two subjects, Iraq and the Arab-Israel problem, were pretty widely shared and we thought that we ought to make them public."

Mr Miles said they did not intend to damage Mr Blair politically but simply wanted to make their voice heard. On Iraq he added: "We do think that through lack of planning and through a misunderstanding, a misreading of the situation, we have got ourselves into an extremely difficult situation."

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell told Radio 4's Today Programme the letter came from experts in their field.

"The prime minister would be well advised to read carefully what they have said and respond in a grown up fashion," he said.

Certainly a higher expectation than we can expect from Dickchickenboli's Bushnocchio!

Now that you have had an overview of that the British Ambassodors had to say, here's the full text of their letter (emphasis mine):

Ambassadors' letter to Blair

Here is the letter sent by more than 50 former British ambassadors to Tony Blair, urging him either to influence US policy in the Middle East or to stop backing it:

We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States.

Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a Road Map for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds.

The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved.

But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the Road Map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.

Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement.

All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case.

To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region.

However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the Coalition is naive.

This is the view of virtually all independent specialists in the region, both in Britain and in America.

We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the United Nations to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.

The military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders.

Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition.

The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total between 10,000 and 15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred, including many civilians, men, women and children.

Phrases such as `We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice,' apparently referring only to those who have died on the Coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions those killings arouse.

We share your view that the British Government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency.

If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting
policies which are doomed to failure.

Signatories: Brian Barder; Paul Bergne; John Birch; David
Blatherwick; Graham Boyce; Julian Bullard; Juliet Campbell; Bryan Cartledge;
Terence Clark; David Colvin; Francis Cornish; James Craig; Brian Crowe; Basil
Eastwood; Stephen Egerton; William Fullerton; Dick Fyjis-Walker; Marrack
Goulding; John Graham; Andrew Green; Vic Henderson; Peter Hinchcliffe; Brian
Hitch; Archie Lamb and David Logan.

Christopher Long; Ivor Lucas; Ian McCluney; Maureen MacGlashan; Philip McLean; Christopher MacRae; Oliver Miles; Martin Morland; Keith Morris; Richard Muir; Alan Munro; Stephen Nash; Robin O'Neill; Andrew Palmer; Bill Quantrill; David Ratford; Tom Richardson; Andrew Stuart; David Tatham; Crispin Tickell; Derek Tonkin; Charles Treadwell; Hugh Tunnell; Jeremy Varcoe; Hooky Walker; Michael Weir and Alan White.

Someone once made a comment that wars are ways for the anger of a dispute to be dissipated so that the diplomats can go back to work in a calmer atmosphere. It's beginning to look like the diplomats want to go back to work.

Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.