The Foreign Service Journal, May 2008

The Dalai Lama has expressed it eloquently: “Amid our perceived differences, we tend to forget how the world’s different religions, ideologies and political sys- tems were meant to serve humans, not to destroy them. Today, more than ever, we need to make a fundamental recognition of the basic oneness of humanity the foun- dation of our perspective on the world and its chal- lenges.” We must demand more and better diplomatic efforts from all government leaders, and we must ask our reli- gious leaders to lead us out of this morass. Most impor- tant, we must individually take on this universal responsi- bility to promote dialogue and understanding at every level, publicly and privately. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it this way while speaking last November at Kansas State University: “We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military. We must focus our energies on the other ele- ments of national power that will be so crucial in the years to come. The military is no replacement for civilian involvement and expertise. Where civilians are on the ground, even in small numbers, we have seen tangible and often dramatic changes.” How should we mark the tenth anniversary of the embassy bombings in Africa? We need to renew hope and each make efforts at global understanding the goal for this next decade, if we want to survive until the twentieth anniversary of the East Africa attacks. F O C U S M A Y 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 35 JGH: For the last 10 years you have been speaking around the country about your experiences as the ambassador in Nairobi at the time of the embassy bombing. What has been your main message? PB: I talk about leadership during times of crisis, based not only on what I learned after the bombing of the embassy in Nairobi, but what the community taught me as it responded to what had hap- pened. The foreign affairs community, both the American and locally employed members, were a group of professionals who, despite the fact that they had just been blown up, picked themselves up, set their objectives and rebuilt everything from the bottom up. I put my own needs on hold to make myself worthy of the community I was lead- ing. I, too, was a victim, and having empathy for what others were experiencing was critical to me as a leader. JGH: Do you think the State Department has become better at helping people cope with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder since 1998? PB: I noted a lot of anger at the town meeting that Director General Harry Thomas hosted last October. I think it comes in part from a need for validation from department leadership for what employees are experiencing. In the case of Nairobi, no one in a lead- ership position ever said to us, “I am sorry for what you all have gone through.” There is still a belief in the department that if you reward people who have been through danger and trauma with a good onward assignment, you have taken care of them. Most people need more validation of their experience and their response to it, whatever that may be. This is the foundation of reconciliation. JGH: What is the reason that our relations with Kenya remain strong, despite the trauma of the bombing and the fact that so many Kenyans died? PB: Our relations were shaken after the bombing because so many Kenyans were angry at the overwhelming death and devasta- tion. But almost all of the American community stayed, met with Kenyans and faced their anger. I think the fact that we were on the ground and could show empathy, weep at funerals, help orphans, shake hands with mutilated teenagers, and provide rehabilitation assistance helped validate what the Kenyans had gone through. JGH: There seems to be such a fine line between the incredible need for personal diplomacy and the safety of Foreign Service offi- cers. How can it be defined? PB: It comes down to defining what we, as a country, stand for. I have not seen that defined either by the current administration or by our presidential candidates. The lack of an articulation of the values on which we base our foreign policy makes it difficult to rationalize decisions, including the security risks. I do not think that fighting ter- rorists is a value; it may be an imperative, but that is different. If it is a world at peace we are seeking, then we would likely be creating a different range of policies and strategies. For example, if the U.S. seriously articulated the value of peace in the world, we could create a range of strategies to have diplomats promote peacemakers, rather than relying so heavily on our military to train warriors, as we are doing now. Without a definition of what we stand for as a country, it is hard to create coherent policies or correctly balance the need for safety and outreach in a way people can understand. JGH: Have we learned anything, as a country or as a State Department, in the decade since the bombing? PB: As an organization, we have learned a lot. I think Aug. 7, 1998, was the State Department’s 9/11. I know that ambassadors and employees are far less likely to complain about security restric- tions. One of the differences that the East Africa bombings created was a shift in attitude about the responsibility of department leadership — from the idea that our leadership doesn’t owe us anything because we choose to be at a post, to: By God, they do owe us something because we have seen colleagues die and we could die, too. As a country, unfortunately, we didn’t really pay any attention to the bombings in East Africa. That changed, of course, on Sept. 11, 2001. LESSONS LEARNED 10 YEARS LATER Interview with Prudence Bushnell, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya