Portrait of a Diplomat: Ambassador “Spike” Dubs (1920-1979) #athingofthespirit

Posted: 3:26 am ET

 

This year marks the thirty-ninth anniversary of the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph “Spike” Dubs in Kabul. He was appointed Ambassador to Afghanistan in 1978 following a coup d’etat. On February 14, 1979, Dubs was kidnapped by armed militants posing as police.

According to ADST, documents later released from KGB archives in the 1990s showed that “the Afghan government clearly authorized an assault on the kidnappers despite forceful U.S. demands for peaceful negotiations and that the KGB adviser on the scene may have recommended the assault as well as the execution of a kidnapper before U.S. experts could interrogate him.

FSO Bruce Flatin was the Political Counselor in Kabul at the time of Dubs’ assassination. He was interviewed by ADST’s Charles Stuart Kennedy in 1993. Read more from his oral history interview in The Assassination of Ambassador Spike Dubs — Kabul, 1979. Bruce K. Byers who was USIS Press Attaché at U.S. Embassy Kabul from 1978-79 wrote Remembering Ambassador Dubs, and the Future of Afghanistan for American Diplomacy in 2009.  Ambassador Dubs is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Most recently, David Langbart, an Archivist in the Textual Records Division at the National Archives at College Park posted  in The Text Message blog his Tribute to a Fallen Diplomat that includes a 1979 cable about Ambassador Dubs:

While the outline of his career covers all the bureaucratic bases, it does not reflect the ambassador’s achievements nor does it reveal the man.  The editors of the WASHINGTON STAR asked Warren Zimmerman, a former subordinate of Dubs at a posting in Yugoslavia and then working in the U.S. embassy in Paris, for a contribution about the ambassador.  In response, he prepared a draft under the title “Portrait of a Diplomat” that he sent to Washington in the following telegram, from the Central Foreign Policy Files (NAID 654098).

Clips from the Zimmerman’s February 1979 cable below. Click here to read the entire cable via NARA.

 

#

 

Advertisements

Leaks in the Department of State in 1963, and a Scolding on Leaks in 2015

Posted: 1:40 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

Foreign Policy’s John Hudson recently did a report on Secretary John Kerry admonishing State Department employees about making unauthorized disclosures to the press.

In a tense Monday meeting about leaks, which was promptly, well, leaked to Foreign Policy, Kerry told staff to keep a lid on internal deliberations or find a new place to work.
[…]
“In slightly more polite words, Kerry said if you want to leak, you can get the f— out,” a State Department official said.

Asked about the meeting, State Department spokesman John Kirby said at no time did Kerry “discourage anybody at the State Department not to talk to the media.”

Read more  (registration may be required):

.

The National Archives,  did a blogpost on Leaks in the Department of State, 1963 on March 17, 2015. That post includes an 8-page memo to President Kennedy on how Under Secretary of State George W. Ball (then the Department’s #2 official) plan to deal with the issue.

On April 28, Mr. Langbart posted additional documentation on what led to that memorandum in his post,  Leaks in the Department of State, 1963: Antecedents.

By early September 1962, President Kennedy and Under Secretary Ball were discussing how to handle relations with the press.  To brief the Under Secretary and provide him with food for thought, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Robert Manning to sent Ball a long memorandum.

Among the points he made were (the following are all direct quotations from Manning’s memo to Ball, 1962):

  • [O]ccasionally top officials of the government display a certain lack of reality about (a) the degree to which we can expect the day-to-day coverage of foreign policy to reflect only the assessments and characteristics that we believe are the correct ones, and (b) the degree to which we react to individual stories or pieces of speculation we do not like.
  •  [I]n almost all instances where given stories or reports seem to raise serious problems for us, experience shows that a few hours or a few days later there was, in fact, no real cause for demonstrable concern. We too often allow ourselves to react when in fact the problem would disappear — or prove to have been non-existent — if we were to just relax and move on to other matters.
  •  [W]e have to give more thought to what can be done to protect the main objective, namely the pursuit of the national interest, from harm or mischief that can be done by ill-considered reporting or ill-considered talk and gossip by government officials.
  •  I would be deeply concerned — for the government, for the Administration and for the President himself — if this concern were to provoke us into oppressive practices or other inhibitions that would not solve the problem yet might very well hamper the ability of officials to get the information they need and use it for legitimate conduct of their duties.
  •  I might give a few opinions on what produces the kind of talk and gossip and bits and pieces of fact and fancy that make up a large part of the dialogue between officials and the press in Washington.
  •  There is no doubt . . . that the official State Department position is that within the limits of national security and national interests there is supposed to be direct dialogue between officiers [sic] dealing with policy and members of the press. . . . and it is in the interests of the competent men dealing with policies to take a direct responsibility for making those policies clear to responsible correspondents.
  •  People who talk to the press are supposed to be motivated by the simple purpose of the Department policy, namely to explain policies to the American people and to make a public use of the power of the press and of public discussion to help carry its policies forward.
  •  Often, however, those who talk are propelled by other impulses:

— There are a few who get a simple personal enjoyment out of talking with newsmen, out of cultivating them, their acquaintance, their approval, and . . . out of the personal publicity and identity that can be attained by press, and . . . public attention.

 — There are the simply garrulous types who in fact enjoy being in the know and are apt occasionally to try to demonstrate this point. . . .

 — There are those who use the channel of the press to leak partial information on policies they oppose, in the hope that such publicity will defeat or amend those policies; or who, conversely, will talk prematurely in order to push a policy into the open and therefore closer to acceptance. . . .

—  There are those who in all sincerity believe they have all the facts at their command and that they have a mandate to make them clear and forthright within the confines of security practices and other restrictions.  This type represents the best and in my estimate should be protected should there be any attempt to bring the other types under control.

 — There is the person whose primary function is to talk to the press on behalf of the government in the role of information officer or public affairs adviser or spokesman or whatever you want to call him. Since this is the breed that includes . . .  myself . . . , I have a particular interest in promoting their worth and enhancing their value. . . .  I do feel strongly however that more has to be done about bringing this group or a representative of this group into the very middle of the most delicate situations. . . .   Once a correspondent knows he is talking with a person “who was there” and once he has come to trust that person, he is willing to stake his own reputation on the information he gets. . . . .

  • I do not believe that there are any simple mechanical ways in which the problem of leaks and unknowing conversations can be completely cured. I would be strongly opposed to any steps designed sharply to inhibit responsible officers from contacts with the press . . . [as they] would have unfortunate repercussions in the actual performance of officials in the Department.
  • It may be possible . . . to produce a sharper awareness of the problem and to get some useful result if you were to follow your idea of talking personally to officials . . . of the Department about the nature of this problem and the concern that is felt by you, the Secretary and the President.
  • [I]t would also be of immense help if some similar educational process could be applied to that area of the White House staff that maintains its own intimate and, frequently, very thorough intercourse with the press.

Read the original post here via Text Message.

#

Presidential Christmas and New Year Greetings to U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff, Families, c.1933

— Domani Spero

David Langbart of the National Archives writes that “the Great Depression had a serious negative impact on the situation of American diplomatic and consular officials overseas.  Toward the end of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first year as president, he sent the following note to Secretary of State Cordell Hull (best known as the longest serving Secretary of State, holding the position in FDR‘s administration from 1933–1944).

[Source:  Record Group 59: General Records of the Department of State, 1930-39 Central Decimal File, File: 120/152.]

FDR.HOLIDAYS.0001

More from the National Archives:

Ten days after the President’s request, Secretary Hull sent him a draft.  In a cover letter, the Secretary of State noted that the holiday greeting could be addressed to the head of all American diplomatic missions – Ambassadors, Ministers, Ministers Resident, Diplomatic Agents, and Charges d’Affaires – who would communicate the message to consular officers over whom they had jurisdiction.  Because there were a number of consular officers not under the jurisdiction of a diplomatic officer, Hull suggested that a circular instruction be sent in such cases.  Ultimately, to ensure that all consular officers received the greeting, it was sent under cover of a circular instruction to all consular officials.

After approval by the President, the Department prepared the letters for his signature and then staggered their dispatch in the diplomatic pouch so that they would arrive in the week before Christmas.

The President’s message read:

As the year draws to a holiday pause before its

close, I take much pleasure in sending out to you and

through you to your personal and official family, and

to the Foreign Service staffs in [name of country], my

heartiest good wishes.  Your loyal and intelligent

cooperation with us in Washington has made these

recent months of our association a source of great

satisfaction and encouragement to me in this important

period of our country’s development.

In offering my best greetings for Christmas and

the New Year, I look forward in confident anticipation

to continuing mutual cooperation in 1934.

 

Some Foreign Service officers responded to the President’s message.  Their comments make it clear that the message had its intended positive effect.  Roosevelt sent similar messages in future years.

* * *

Happy holidays to you and yours!

Mutlu Bayramlar!

Tanoshii kurisumasu wo!

Buone Feste!

Felices Fiestas!

D☃S

Ninety-Five Years Ago, We Tried to Export American Thanksgiving Day Around The World

— Domani Spero

Via achives.gov,  below is an excerpt from David Langbart’s The Text Message blog post from November 20, 2012 about  Thanksgiving Day 1918. The Text Message is the blog of the Textual Services Division at the National Archives.

“Thanksgiving is considered by many to be the quintessential American holidayAs Thanksgiving 1918 approached, American had more reason than the usual to give thanks.  On November 11, 1918, Germany signed the armistice that brought World War I to an effective end.  In the wake of that event, the United States made an attempt to broaden the application of Thanksgiving to a selected world-wide audience.

On November 13, the Department of State sent a the following telegram, personally drafted and signed by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, to its diplomatic representatives in the capitals of the victorious powers.  The message went to the American embassy or legation in Belgium, Brazil, China, Cuba, France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, and Siam.”

langbart1_thanksgiving 1918

Click on image to read the cable)

Here is the text of Secretary of State Lansing’s telegram above:

Nov 13, 1918
“You will at the first opportunity offered call attention of the Government, to which you are accredited, to the fact that on the last Thursday of November this country according to customs will celebrate a national day of thanksgiving and prayer. You may add that at this time, when there are such profound reasons for gratitude, the other victorious nations may consider it appropriate to designate Thursday, November twenty-eight, a national day of thanksgiving for the blessings bestowed upon us.”

Mr. Langbart writes:

Not all countries responded.  Among the responses, the government of Greece appointed November 28 a national holiday to celebrate “deliverance from the yoke of foreign domination;” in Brazil, the government declared November 28 a day of thanksgiving and rejoicing and further stated that “Brazil wishes to associate herself in this thanksgiving with the people of North America who both in time of peace and war have been her friends;” and in great Britain, while there was not enough time to make arrangements for a general celebration, a service took place at Saint Martin in the Fields, attended by a representative of the King, other principals of the UK government, and members of the U.S. embassy.  Several other countries designated November 28 a national holiday.

Mr. Langbart notes that President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) also issued the traditional Thanksgiving Proclamation on November 19, 1918, and it was distributed via telegram to American diplomatic and consular employees around the World.  Click here to see the two-page telegram.

Thanksgiving Day became an official Federal holiday in 1863 under President Abraham Lincoln who proclaimed it  a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens”, to be celebrated on Thursday, November 26.  That 1863 proclamation was reportedly written by Secretary of State William Seward, and the original was in his handwriting.  The holiday was not always a paid Federal holiday nor always on the fourth Thursday of November.  According to the CRS (pdf), a law signed by FDR on December 26, 1941, settled the dispute and permanently established Thanksgiving Day as a federal holiday to be observed on the fourth Thursday in November.

🍹 Happy Thanksgiving everyone!  Thank you for making us part of your day.  And if you have a bird in this year’s White House Hunger Games, may the odds be ever in your favor🍹!! 

* * *