A defining feature of 2020 has been its test upon our attention spans and powers of memory. There has been so much fast-breaking and constantly changing news that it can be difficult on Wednesday to recall the events of Monday, much less the events of a week or a month before. |
Imagine publishing a book in this climate. Now imagine the additional hurdles of trying to promote a book during the pandemic’s limits on social interaction and our ability to gather. Many libraries are closed. Many bookstores have canceled public events. With travel limited, authors face obstacles to book tours. How is a writer to get her or his work talked about, much less meet with and answer questions from readers? |
Many of you will recall Shackelford, a rising American diplomat whose stinging resignation letter in 2017 to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went viral. In that letter, Shackelford criticized what she saw as an American retreat from championing human rights and noted that the State Department had “ceded to the Pentagon our authority to drive U.S. foreign policy.” |
In her book, part memoir and part critique of American diplomacy in the past decades, Shackelford, a lawyer who joined the Foreign Service in 2010, traces the arc of her journey from an idealistic young diplomat to a disillusioned veteran. She focuses much of her attention on the United States’ support for the government of South Sudan, where she was posted with the dual roles of human rights officer and consular officer, even as the new nation, troubled by corruption and burdened by legacy of ethnic violence, drifted to civil war. I caught up with Shackelford in recent weeks to discuss her book. |
Below is part of our exchange, in which she spoke of her experience as both a diplomat and dissenter serving a country — the United States — that with little self-reflection enabled brutal government officials and an escalating war. |
Your posting to Juba, the capital of South Sudan, was your dream assignment, until it wasn’t. What contributed most to your disillusionment? |
I went to Juba expecting challenges but with an overriding sense of optimism, fed by the prevailing narrative that South Sudan was a great success story and that the bad news seeping out was just the growing pains of a young country. I learned upon arrival that this narrative was false. The country was marred by violence, supported overtly and covertly by the government we were backing. The president and his cohort were aggressively closing political space. The population lived in dire conditions, having gained little from peace dividends gobbled up by corrupt actors. None of it felt or looked like a success story on the ground, and yet the U.S. government seemed reluctant to admit that openly. |
One observation from your book is that the relatively low priority of human rights in American foreign policy predates the Trump administration and is not particular to a party. As national security adviser, Susan Rice, for example, opposed an arms embargo against South Sudan’s government and remained a supporter of the government in spite of its deep-rooted corruption and extensive human rights abuses. Ultimately the United States emerged as an enabler of the conflict. What would you have done differently, if you could have influenced the policy? |
My starting point is “first do no harm.” Our continued backing of bad actors violates that principle. Susan Rice came to the defense of President Salva Kiir repeatedly, and it was part of a pattern of protecting bad actors in the region. She had done the same in Rwanda and Uganda, where her support for their presidents was unshakable despite their destabilizing military activity in Congo that fueled a violent civil war for years. This is often defended in the name of stability and maintaining influence. But impunity and human rights violations lay the groundwork for long-term instability instead, and we squandered that supposed influence. Diplomats are stewards of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars. We shouldn’t tolerate their use to prop up bad actors. Not only is it ineffective toward our national-security goals, but it makes us complicit in those bad acts. I would have withdrawn our support, political and financial, in increments before and during the war as a statement of our disapproval. Would it have changed much? Perhaps not, but at least we would not be complicit. |
What can future American diplomats learn from your experience? |
Inertia is powerful. In South Sudan, we stayed the course with our support, even when the case for doing so had crumbled. The status quo is politically and practically easier, but that is why we must actively seek critical self-reflection and be open to dissenting opinions and debate. This is the strength newcomers can bring to the table by asking questions that others have long since taken for granted. Dissenting isn’t easy, but it’s an important part of growth and progress for our foreign-policy structure and in any institution. |
When your resignation letter went viral, the publicity, noise and harassment must have been draining. What advice would you offer to other dissenters inside the American government? |
Don’t feed the trolls. I had to teach my mother that, because she didn’t take the online attacks against me very well. I took great comfort in the support from former colleagues who were grateful that I had voiced what so many had been thinking. When one of us speaks out and asks questions, it gives others the courage to do the same. We saw this with the impeachment hearings and continue to see examples of it every day. While these acts might not be effective in the way we hope for at the time, they become part of the story and historical record. These ripples matter. Don’t wonder if you’ll regret speaking up and pushing back. Ask yourself if you’ll regret not doing so. |
Interview has been condensed and edited. |
C.J. Chivers is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. He received a Pulitzer Prize for feature writing in 2017 and is the author of two books, including “The Fighters,” which chronicled the experiences of six American combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq. |
Beyond the World War II We Know |
 | | Lewis W. Matthews, shown in 1943, served in the South Pacific during World War II. He was one of the many Black soldiers who faced discrimination after returning home.Lewis W. Matthews |
|
“At the heart of it was a kind of nervousness and fear that many whites had that returning Black veterans would upset the racial status quo.” After fighting overseas, Black soldiers faced violence and segregation at home. Many, like Lewis W. Matthews, were forced to take menial jobs. Although he managed to push through racism, that wasn’t an option for many. [Read the article.] |
The Afghan War Casualty Report: July 2020 |
 | | Afghan security personnel inspect the site of a car bomb blast on an intelligence compound in Aybak, the capital of the Samangan Province in northern Afghanistan, on July 13.Associated Press |
|
At least 282 pro-government forces and 109 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan in July so far. An additional 15 people were killed in Logar Province on July 30 after a car bomb exploded in Pul-e-Alam, the provincial capital, though officials did not have a breakdown of military and civilian casualties. [Read the report.] |
Here are five articles from The Times that you might have missed. |
 | | Protesters in Khartoum earlier this month called for the Sudanese government to provide security for the people of Darfur.Ashraf Shazly/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images |
|
“When you see attacks like this one, and it’s just another Tuesday in Darfur, you realize that not much has changed since the revolution.” The ouster of Sudan’s longtime ruler last year stoked hopes for peace in brutalized Darfur. But violence has surged amid fresh accusations against Sudan’s security forces. [Read the article.] |
“Based on what I heard from locals, the helicopter was shot by the Taliban.” An Afghan helicopter was attacked in the country’s south this week by what American and Afghan officials say was a missile rarely seen in the hands of the Taliban, raising new concerns for an already beleaguered Afghan military and questions about who supplied the weapon. [Read the article.] |
“We can see some moves begin within weeks.” The United States is cutting back its deployments in Germany by nearly 12,000 troops and shifting some of those forces around the continent, including relocating some units to Belgium and Italy, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper announced on Wednesday. [Read the article.] |
“We believe our operations caused the inadvertent death of one person.” The Pentagon has admitted for the third time that its bombing campaign against terrorist groups in Somalia, which has been underway for more than a decade, caused civilian casualties there, a military report said on Tuesday. [Read the article.] |
“We will soon have many low-orbit military satellites with excellent surveillance capabilities.” The South Korean government said on Tuesday that it would begin work on launching its own military surveillance satellites to monitor North Korea, after negotiating a loosening in an agreement with the United States that limits the kind of rockets it is permitted to develop. [Read the article.] |
We’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to atwar@nytimes.com. Or invite someone to subscribe through this link. Read more from At War here. |
Follow us on Twitter for more from At War. To follow the At War channel on your phone, please download the NYTimes app from the iOS App Store. If you already have it, tap the icon on the top right corner to choose what to follow. Or paste the link below into your mobile browser to get directly to the channel: |
nytimes://followChannel/b396fb44-696e-489b-a102-e5b409020e8d |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment