Paper Tiger: State Dept. Speech Texts Include Tough Talk, but Speeches Didn’t
The Obama administration has fallen into an unfortunate habit in its desperation to burnish strong foreign policy credentials: claiming its representatives have made robust statements to an international audience, when they have not.
On June 18, the State Department posted what was alleged to be a hard-nosed speech delivered by UN Human Rights Council Ambassador Eileen Donahoe in Geneva at the opening of the Council’s latest session. Here is what the State Department claims Obama’s ambassador said:
The United States demands an end to the Assad regime’s outrageous crimes against the people of Syria. Those who committed these atrocities must be identified and held accountable.
She did not include this. Here is another passage from the posting that Donahoe did not actually speak:
Some believe that the Human Rights Council should not address country-specific situations. We disagree. The credibility of the UN’s human rights machinery depends on its capacity to address urgent and persistent human rights situations where and when they emerge; to make a difference in the lives of the people who suffer under oppressive governments; and to protect those around the world who work to advance the cause of human rights.
This isn’t the first time the speech record has been doctored. In September 2010, two months after a series of systematic mass rapes began in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an informal meeting on the subject was held during a Human Rights Council session lunch break. Deliberately, it was not a meeting of the Council itself: there was no advertisement in the UN bulletin, no webcast, no recording service, and no UN press release on the event. Yet the U.S. mission to Geneva issued a press release with the title: “United States Welcomes Engagement by Human Rights Council on Abuses in DRC.”
The press release included a large file photo of a full meeting in the Council chamber — the “informal dialogue” had purposely not been scheduled in that chamber. The press release also quoted Ambassador Donahoe as saying:
Today’s meeting demonstrated that the Council can react to events in real time.
A few days later, Donahoe wrapped up the Council session with praise:
I also recognize the forward movement made on other important human-rights issues this session. … I welcome the council’s engagement on the issue of the mass rapes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This showed the council’s ability to react to real events in real time and to contribute its voice to this important issue.
Not only is two months later not “real time,” but the Council itself had not reacted at all.
Virtually every speech given on the floor(s) of Congress ends with the following phrase:
“I ask for consent to amend and extend my remarks…”
The result: the Congressional Record, the official repository of the actions of our elected officials on the floor(s) of Congress regularly contains utterances not said, and omits utterance actually said, with no indication in that Record that this has happened.
That the President is extending this to the State Department is no great surprise.
It ought to be forbidden everywhere in government.
It’s State culture. The most important thing is not to rub anybody the wrong way. That includes other states, other government agencies, and even other bureaus within the Department. The President gets to be assertive, when and as he chooses to be. Diplomats get to be diplomatic.
Well “State culture” is lousy. Refuse to rub real human rights violators the wrong way – or cover up and lie for them like the Hiss department did for Mao – and what you get is a lot more human rights violations.
“Diplomats get to be diplomatic.” Like Hillary in Africa? “I’m not channeling my husband here!”
One of the worst things about American government is State – the two-faced face we show the world. The stink of Ivy League privilege has long been a big factor.
Oh, and Bugs, if they wanna just be diplomatic, why lie about it with the released texts?
Well retlaw (and Bugs), I’m one of those career diplomats at State, and I’ll be the first to admit that it can be a pretty frustrating culture much of the time. We don’t like to rub anyone the wrong way, and the reason for that is that we are trained to stay in the background, so as to propound US foreign policy (and carry it out). We are hired to publicly implement the foreign policy of the US set into play by our elected boss, the President – not to make our own foreign policy. State is very hierarchical, and in a hierarchy such as ours (similar to the military) what is presented to the world is what is decided at the Secretarial and White House levels. Do the employees where you work get to officially scold the boss’s decisions in front of your company’s competitors? It’s really as simple as that.
I do disagree often with US foreign policy, and I can express my disagreement privately through our State dissent channel, which is quite robust and well-received by the policy-makers at the top of the pyramid, but whether anything is done depends on who those policy-makers are, and that depends on who the American electorate sends to the Presidency. Change at State begins with change in the White House. Give us a John Bolton as Secretary of State, and you’ll see changes, and ones I think you’ll be proud of.
I wish Bolton were the nominee.
You like Bolton, but for career reasons you’re registered Dem? Dude, how robust can your “dissent channel” be if you’re afraid to admit how you vote?
I spend lots of time abroad, and the Foreign Service is poorly supervised. In Egypt during Bush only Muslims were hired to staff our own embassies, and they vetoed every U.S. visa for Coptic Christians. Women with shrill Pekinese accents on their Mandarin are set to interview visa applicants in Taiwan – not diplomatic at all!
Our whole system of immigration, work-visas, study-visas, and tourist-visas is ridiculously out of whack. I know that’s policy, not your fault – but incompetence from you makes it worse.
What a pity Rummy didn’t get chosen to overhaul Foggy Bottom rather than the Pentagon – you guys need a kick up the rump.
Unfortunately, too much of how embassies operate (and the State Dept in general) is opaque and not clear to the public, and I agree with you about the Department needing some prodding. That true of everyone in the federal gov’t, and much of the private sector, as well. But, your point is well-taken.
If I may speak to your experiences regarding your time in Egypt, I’d like to clear up some common misconceptions. All decisions regarding visas to the US (all) are decided by a American officer (a diplomat) directly at the visa window, or indirectly through the clearance process. Only an American citizen can adjudicate a visa to the US. That is US law. Individuals you saw in Cairo or Taipei were local employees, as in every US Embassy and Consulate around the world, hired to provide clerical and other non-decision making assistance.
As to Coptic Christians being refused visas, I would have to see each case, but I can give a quick overview of the adjudication process. By federal law, all visa applicants are considered to be intending immigrants at the time of their interview for a non-immigrant visa, and must prove to the US officer that they do not intend to stay in the US. Considering the situation of the Copts in Egypt, that makes for a very high bar to jump to prove that they intend to return to Egypt. In all honesty, I would likely refuse most of them myself. As I said in an earlier post, if one wants change in policy, it must start with change at the top.
My tag at PJM, RealClearPolitics, etc is IndependentDem, but when I, or any other Foreign Service Officer, “talk to the bosses” back in DC it is with our real names. I still use this tag, though I haven’t voted Democrat in years, for continuity, so that others who read my comments may more easily connect them with what they may have read from me in the past – that’s all.
I hope that may response hasn’t come across as snarky or defensive, because I haven’t meant it that way. I enjoy your posts, and hope to continue doing so.
I enjoy your posts as well, thanks for your reply.
This is from 2005:
“Among those making complaints to the State Department is a Christian man who was seeking to donate a kidney to an uncle in New Jersey.
“He says he was twice told to remove the cross he was wearing if he wanted a visa.”
The link to that story is here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/new-york-post-coptic-visa-nix-scandal.html
The women I mentioned were Chinese-American foreign service officers – the ones deciding at the window.
Well put. Sort of what I was trying to say, only I wasn’t as diplomatic – or as thorough.
Good point about the hierarchy. Sometimes actions or statements have to be finely tuned so as not to exceed one’s authority or step on someone else’s turf. As you say, it can be frustrating for “employees” – wanting to get things done, knowing what needs to be done, but finding the solution out of reach due to…other considerations. At the same time, as you also say, we can’t have “employees” making policy and conducting diplomacy however they see fit. If strong words aren’t coming from the White House, they shouldn’t be coming from State, either.
As a diplomat, would you say the speeches in question might be “watered down” in order to give the government some flexibility in responding to the incidents? Taking a hard line can sometimes amount to painting oneself into a corner.
Thanks for an interesting response.
Yes, speeches are often “watered down.” But, a speech at the level as the one referenced in the article would have been through an exhausting clearance process, as everyone and his mother would have wanted to clear on it, before being given.
However, I think the issue being addressed in the article is different. The Obama Administration is claiming that something was delivered publicly (official policy) when it actually was not. That is a troubling development, but completely in keeping with this President’s willingness to stretch the truth to the point of breaking (and beyond) when it helps their cause. Again, we get down to the germ of the issue – the person at the top, and the culture they inculcate in the structure they lead.
This is just another example of right-wing race baiting. A basic pattern is emerging: claim that President Obama and/or His representative said something, then manufacture “evidence” that “proves” that the statement was false or not said, thus proving the “lie”. This is a time honored tactic among the racist right. Look to our criminal justice system as an example. Here’s a perfect hypothetical: black man is accused of a crime, but black man denies having committed the crime. Solution to this dilemma? Manufacture witnesses who will say that the innocent black man DID commit the crime. This happens everyday in every part of the USA. Except here we see this tactic being perpetrated at the highest level of political affairs. Well, I’m not buying it! If Our Dear President says that His representative said something, than that’s what was said! You can manufacture all the alternative stories you want….it doesn’t matter. What He says was said, was said. And that becomes the reality.
I’d bet money you’re not even black, “LovelyEarth”, just another white Democrat with the 150-year-old tactic of using race to divide and conquer.
It used to be “Vote for us or the n-word-lovin GOP will make sure your daughters have black babies!” Now it’s “Vote for us because the GOP hates all blacks and you can’t get ahead without our help!” A disgusting party with nothing but disgusting messages.
“Our Dear President”, yuck. Nixon lied once, and Republicans told him to go. Clinton lied again and again, but you Dems didn’t care. You’re groupies, and you’d line up to drink Obama’s bathwater.
The skin of Othello in the White House is fine by us; the heart of MacBeth is not.
Well said, but you know that anything you or I say to a race-baiting hater is not going to get through. But, it’s still worth a try.
Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Lovely Earth is a known satirist — at least “known” to some around PK Media. Strictly speaking I think he or she should print the word “Satire” above all but the most obvious of posts.
The repetition of satire without explanation could be seen to be provocation. And then one must ask, “why?” or “to what end?” Something you may want to consider LovelyEarth.
I mean I just read some comments at the Economist last night — horrendous stuff really. And just as far out, if not more than many of your satires of the Left. That being said, why do we need yet more of that kind of writing? I’m simply saying that any of us can see this “for real” at any of the MSM outlets.