The Foreign Service Journal, October 2004

10 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 November Election Prompts A Diplomatic Flurry For the first time since the Vietnam era, foreign affairs and national securi- ty issues are looming larger than eco- nomic concerns in a presidential elec- tion, a study by the Pew Research Association released Aug. 18 shows ( http://people-press.org/reports/ display.php3?ReportID=222 ). N ot surprisingly, retired diplomats and other officials have been active in helping to shape the debate. As of August, three different groups of retired diplomats and mili- tary officers had staked their claims in the battle for the foreign policy of the next administration. One group is crit- ical of the Bush administration, one is supportive, and one argues that retired diplomats and military officers/person- nel should not engage in partisan poli- tics at all. The complete statements and lists of signatories of the three groups can be found on the AFSA Web site ( http://www.afsa.org/news/ FSRetireeStatements.cfm ). Founded in June by a 27-member, bipartisan group of former ambas- sadors and four-star commanders, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change ( www.diplomatsfor change.com ) ha s conducted a nation- wide campaign to press for a change in U.S. foreign and defense policy and to ensure an informed public during a critical election year. Though explicit- ly advocating a Bush defeat in November, the group has not endorsed John Kerry. “We believe we have as good an understanding as any of our citizens of basic American interests. Over nearly half a century we have worked ener- getically in all regions of the world, often in very difficult circumstances, to build piece by piece a structure of respect and influence for the United States that has served our country very well over the last 60 years,” the group said in a founding statement released June 16. “Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it.” The statement continues: “We will be among the first to recognize that the nation currently faces unprece- dented threats. We recognize, too, that the Bush administration is now reaching out to allies. But everything we have heard from friends abroad on every continent suggests to us that the lack of confidence in the present administration in Washington is so profound that a whole new team is needed to repair the damage.” DMCC members, including for- mer Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley and former ambassador to Israel (and former AFSA president) William Harrop, have been active in publicizing the group’s views. Said Oakley in a June 16 CNN interview, “We’re all career [public] servants who have never taken a political stand, but what we want to get on record is our profound concern about the future security of the U.S.” Harrop, who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, appeared on “The Newshour with Jim Lehrer” on June 25. Counterpoints Sounded On Aug. 17, at a joint press confer- ence at the National Press Club, two new groups made their debut. Both groups took issue with the DMCC’s initiative, arguing that it creates the “false impression” that its anti-Bush message represents a consensus among experienced diplomats and military officers. One group, Diplomats and Military Professionals for National Security , founded by former Ambassador Dennis K. Hays and 17 former and retired U.S. officials, strongly supports President Bush’s foreign policy. [To contact DMPNS: Amb. Dennis Hays, (202) 974-1399.] “We are speaking out because we find that the current president’s for- eign policy has been misrepresented as out-of-step with the wisdom of the ‘professionals,’” the DMPNS state- ment reads. “In fact, in our profes- sional judgment, the president is pur- suing exactly the right approach. We strongly support the Bush administra- tion’s policies, proven leadership and resolve to eradicate international ter- rorism and to preserve and protect the national security of the United States of America.” In a question-and-answer session, Amb. Hays, a former president of the American Foreign Service Associa- tion, said that Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change did not rep- resent most Foreign Service mem- bers. “We categorically reject the idea that there’s only one opinion among foreign-policy experts and practition- ers about the administration,” Hays said. Hays said retired officers have a right and obligation to speak out, but as individuals, not as a group. His group would not have come forward, he said, were it not for the DMCC. C YBERNOTES