Secretarial Encounters

I joined the Foreign Service during Colin Powell’s tenure. He was known for his commitment to the State Department as an institution, and the staff in particular. He made an effort to meet every new group of Foreign Service Officers, and my class was no exception. Sec. Powell crashed one of our orientation training sessions back in August 2002, made a few comments before running off to what could only have been something more important. I cannot remember now what he said, but I remember being impressed at his presence, and the sincerity in his voice.

Even more impressive, he took time later that day to fulfill a promise he made to us. My class had done him a favor—we helped make a video clip that he used as part of a skit at the ASEAN conference in Brunei that year. The year before, he had sung as part of the “talent” segment of the economic discussions. As an intro to his 2002 performance, he planned to show simulated newscasts of Americans protesting his performance, demanding that he never be allowed to sing in public again. Our class simulated the protests. We had never seen the final clip, or how it was used in Brunei, a fact he learned during his brief meeting with us that August. He promised he would get us a clip of the event, and sure enough, by the end of the day, we were watching our Secretary perform in front of his Asian and Pacific Rim counterparts. It is a small thing, but a clear sign that he was a man of his word, and a man committed to his staff.

Flash forward two years to my next Secretary encounter. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson was coming to Rwanda with a 100-person entourage that represented the whose who of AIDS research and care: head of UNAIDS, the NSF, a number of large pharmaceutical companies, etc. They were on the AIDS tour of Africa, and as Rwanda was among the 15 countries designated by the Bush Administration as a recipient of funds known as the “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” (PEPFAR), the delegation was stopping to evaluate what large influxes of resources could do. Here, I must digress.

PEPFAR, while in theory a commendable policy, is, in reality, a disaster. It is driven completely by Washington political appointees, who, in most cases, have absolutely no conception of the realities and needs on the ground. Mozambique, also among the 15 designated countries and with AIDS rates as high as 40 percent in some regions, initially refused the money because the conditions the US put on the money it believed to be detrimental to the country’s development. In Rwanda, where one in two children is malnourished, AIDS was the third largest killer, behind malaria and TB. While we imposed our program for prevention, treatment and care on a health system that simply could not absorb the cash, we cut back our health funds to support programs in malaria, TB and family planning. During my tenure in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of dollars were needlessly wasted implementing PEPFAR (the majority of which goes back to Western countries in the form of drug purchases or “expert consultants”), individuals and organizations were pressured to “creatively” present patient numbers, and a truly dedicated USG employee lost her job for asking questions like, “What happens to the health care system when PEPFAR funds run out in five years? What about the children we prevent from contracting AIDS who then die of malaria or malnutrition?” Infuriating policy that was a windfall for American drug companies.

Back to Tommy Thompson. What I will remember most about Tommy Thompson is that, despite his rank and the official nature of his visit, he dressed as every other American tourist coming to Africa does—in his newly purchased LL Bean safari gear. Ambassador Holbrook, who came as part of the official US delegation, had been asked to give a speech at the new Genocide memorial during their short stay in Rwanda. He asked if he needed to wear a tie for the event, and if so, could he borrow one. What is it with people coming to Africa that they suddenly lose their ability to dress appropriately? Rwandans are very snappy dressers, and I can only imagine their displeasure with the casual approach our officials took with them. It is a form a colonial condescension.

Fast forward one more year, to November 11, 2005. I’ve just returned from a meeting with the current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Although her term has not been characterized by the same commitment to the State Department as Powell’s, she agreed to meet with all first and second tour Foreign Services officers working at Embassy Baghdad. She made a few remarks and fielded several questions before moving on to what can only be characterized as a superstar welcome by the predominantly US military audience. She spoke easily with our group, as one might expect of a professor who gives the same lecture a thousand times a week. Her main points were the following:

--Service in Iraq now should be compared to diplomatic service after WW II. During the late forties, it seemed like our efforts in the world to spread democracy had failed: communist parties around the globe were having great success at the polls, Germany split, and the Soviets tested a nuclear weapon five years before we expected them to. And yet American diplomats persevered, and revolutionary policies such as the Marshall plan laid the foundation for the democratic transformations of the late eighties and early nineties. Although progress has been difficult in Iraq, she said, several generations from now, a US president will be sitting across from a democratically-elected Iraqi president who is our greatest ally in maintaining peace and democracy in the Middle East. This seed we are planting will surely spread. I do not disagree with the point that transformation must start somewhere, but to couch our invasion of Iraq in terms of bringing democracy to the Middle East is ridiculous, and begs the question, “Why not the other tyrannical and equally as repressive regimes in the region? Could not any one of those countries have served as the new heart of democracy in ancient Mesopotamia?”

--This past summer she has been reading the biographies of our founding fathers (incidentally, so have I), as a way of understanding how “a country that never really should have been (US)” has succeeded. She talked about the debates and deep philosophical differences between participants in Philadelphia’s constitutional meetings. The conclusion she drew is that the progress in Iraq has been remarkable, and that we could be proud of our role in it, despite seeming setbacks that are normal in the creation of a nation. I myself have drawn different conclusions, although I do agree with her that to have expected a smooth process was unreasonable. She said, “When people ask you why we are imposing democracy, respond that only tyranny can be imposed.” Okay, it was a pep rally style comment, but also a gross over-simplification of the real concern that democracy must be something that “the people” seek out and fight for…a point perhaps lost on a political appointee for an administration which has very little regard for the electorate. The political process the US went through, and the struggle in which Iraq now finds itself do not make great comparisons, in my mind at least. But she is the Stanford intellectual (which she mentioned twice in 15 minutes. I'm going to have to start bragging about my mother more!).

--The future of diplomacy is “transformative diplomacy” (follow link from the title to learn about the administration’s catch phrase as it applies to the Middle East). Rather than the more traditional role of reporting on and delivering demarches to foreign governments, Secretary Rice envisions diplomats taking on the role of assisting other countries to change, or transform, into more democratic, stable, economically sound nations—like our own (wink, wink). I will be very curious how my USAID colleagues reacted to this comment, because that is, of course, the role USAID has been trying to play in the world since its inception. Had I been able to ask the Secretary about this vision, I might have questioned the practicality of this approach. She had just commented on the fact that we are finally learning from history that we cannot ignore repressive regimes, because eventually they will become breeding grounds for anti-Western movements. Yet in Africa, where there are old and new repressive regimes in abundance, American resources are being drawn down in order to support the “transformation” of Iraq. What we are doing here in the cradle of humanity is resource intensive—are we really going to pursue a similar policy throughout the world, putting aside questions of whether we *should* pursue them?

--Finally, in a response to a question about Americans' declining support for ongoing war in Iraq (remember Mission Accomplished in May 2003, a full two and a half years before October 2005, which was the deadliest month of the conflict), she suggested two things. First, we need to do a better job of getting the good news of our work and of Iraq’s progress back to the States. Second, if pushed, she suspects most people only regret the war because they do not like to see American soldiers sacrificed, not because they disagree with the fundamental principle behind the war. (Reminder: That principle being democraticizing the Middle East.) Scary, and probably only partially true. I think one would first have to explain the fundamental principle of the war to the average American, and depending on the spin, she/he would agree.

I am not against the idea of supporting freedom movements. I wish there was a more active and defined freedom movement in my own country. I am not against policies that seek to address world-wide humanitarian crises—disease, starvation, gender and racial repression, displaced persons. I am against policies driven by hidden motives, or couched in the grand and noble language of our forefathers, or even worse, infused with the notion of “divine blessing”. I apologize to those of you who do not appreciate my editorializing. But, I am struggling tonight with the idea that I am going to devote another 10 months of my life to this job. How does one change the world?