Page 31 - proof

This is a SEO version of proof. Click here to view full version

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »
in my onward assignment as minister counselor and
deputy chief of mission in Santiago. Historically, DCMs in
Chile had gone on to become ambassadors. In this way,
the “network” was making sure that my dissenting views
on Cyprus did not end my career.
There is a denouement to the story. Almost 30 years
after the Cyprus crisis of 1973-1975, Henry Kissinger
spoke at a luncheon hosted by the American Academy of
Diplomacy. In the question period following his remarks,
Dr. Kissinger found occasion to refer to the crisis. He
stated that Tom Boyatt had written “a prescient memo-
randum that did not receive the attention it deserved.”
He then terminated this brief apologia with a witty re-
mark about how his well-known paranoia had degenerated
into masochism. This brought the house down in laugh-
ter. In this public forum, I would like to thank Secretary
Kissinger for his kind public words on that occasion. Every
one of the 150 distinguished retired FSOs in that room got
the message.
— Thomas D. Boyatt
J U LY - A U G U S T 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L
29
F
O C U S
branches, which threatened to paralyze the federal gov-
ernment. It would be a long time before Congress would
compromise on major issues of foreign policy such as war
powers.
In this sense, at least, the Boyatt case played an impor-
tant role, precisely because, in most people’s eyes, it did
not constitute a major issue, and could thus serve as a sym-
bol of congressional compromise without actually giving
up very much. Under pressure from the press as well as
the American public, the Pike Committee acquiesced to
this logic. In an 8 to 5 vote, it accepted Kissinger’s amal-
gamation.
The Boyatt affair was the first and last time that Con-
gress and the press engaged in public debate about access
to Dissent Channel messages. This case nonetheless pre-
figured fundamental questions about diplomatic dissent
writing and public transparency that would resurface in re-
sponse to diplomatic dissent over the Iraq War and other
more recent issues.